http://myrepublica.com/portal/news_rss.php MYREPUBLICA RSS en-us Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:13:19 NPT Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:13:19 NPT http://myrepublica.com INFO@MYREPUBLICA.COM nilesh_man@hotmail.com http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=56034 Life for Shanta Chaudhary has been a long ordeal. Born into a family of Kamaiyas (indentured laborers) in Dang, Chaudhary was forced into servitude when she was just eight. She started speaking out against the unjust system when she was 18, with the declaration of Dandagaun of Laxmipur VDC in Dang a kamlari-free zone in 2000. Chaudhary was nominated as CA member by CPN-UML under PR quota and worked as the president of Committee on Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Revenue Sharing in the erstwhile CA. These days she is active as a member of Freed Kamlari Struggle Committee and was at the forefront of nationwide protests against the government last week. Mahabir Paudyal met this crusader of kamlari emancipation to discuss the nature of kamlari system, the recent deal between the government and agitating kamlaris and other personal issues. [break] How does the system of kamaiya and kamlari actually work? Kamaiyas (males) and kamlaris (females) are part of the same system of indentured labor. This system is pervasive in five districts of western Nepal: Banke, Bardiya, Dang, Kailali and Kanchanpur. It is directly related to land ownership. Because one would become a kamaiya or kamlari when one had no land to till, they would work in the fields of the landlords to earn their livelihood. But they do not get this opportunity unless they send their daughters to work as domestic servants at the landlords’ houses. There, a kamlari is virtually a slave. Kamlaris are bought and sold on the first day of the Nepali month of Magh. Once sold, they have to work like slaves. In principle, a kamlari can leave her master’s house on Magh first. But the debt owed to the master is usually so high that she cannot realistically escape and the vicious cycle is perpetuated. Keshab Thoker/Republica Last week you were part of a nationwide movement against this slavery. What made you stop it? Our struggle will continue until all kamlaris get their rights. We put the agitation on hold because the government agreed to address our concerns via a ten-point deal. They have promised to meet our just demands within a month. If the government fails to do so, we will start the movement anew. Kamaiyas were declared free in 2000. Why weren’t kamlaris freed at the same time? The government of the time put the issues of kamlaris and kamaiyas in the same basket. It thought emancipating kamaiyas would automatically free kamlaris. As per the laws, kamlrais are free as well. If you go to the districts I mentioned earlier, you will see that landlords are really scared of keeping kamaiyas. They fear that they could be prosecuted because they know kamaiyas are free. But they still keep kamlaris because they think they have not yet been freed. Our demand is that the government should declare an end to the system. This will discourage landlords from keeping and mistreating kamaiyas. A clear message needs to be sent that keeping a kamalari is a crime. What has kept the government from doing this? I think the government is being too cautious. It knows the situation of freed kamaiyas. They were declared free but they have not been provided any land and shelter. They were thrown into the fire from the frying pan. We are not going to keep quiet unless government offers us livelihood opportunities. The status quo cannot continue. We have issued an ultimatum to the government to declare us free, while also providing us with work alternatives as well as education, shelter, rehabilitation and safety. The government cannot fool us this time. What exactly should the government do? The state should first identify the means of livelihood of kamlaris as well as their skills. Kamaiyas and kamlaris are the most hardworking people of the country. The state should provide them with land and if that is not possible it should come up with alternative programs to employ them. Don’t you believe the state is serious about addressing this issue? It is clear that the state is not. In fact, it has no regard for the poor and the oppressed. The brutal physical assault on young kamlari girls last week is proof. There is a deep rooted tendency among state actors to protect the oppressors and prosecute the oppressed. If the home minister had even an ounce of morality, he should have resigned after the police’s brutal attack on young and helpless kamlaris. Home Ministry is supposed to flex its muscles on criminals, not on the hapless girls who have come to demand their basic rights. What sort of people actually keep kamlaris? It is usually the rich and affluent landlords. But even those in justice-delivery bodies have kept kamlaris. Judges, politicians, administrators, high level officials in government, they all keep kamlaris. This is the reason they do not want to abolish the system. But many claim to be helping kamlaris by providing them with food and security. Yes, some masters may be treating kamlaris well. But is it not a fundamental right of a person to be educated, free and provided with food and shelter? Is not kamlari system against fundamental human rights? Must a poor girl work in the house of the landlord like a slave for two meals a day? Where are kamlaris mainly concentrated these days? It’s difficult to pinpoint an exact location. Of late, landlords have come to the towns from villages, brining kamalris along. I see kamlaris working in some houses but when I ask the masters who they are they say they are nieces or brother’s daughters. There are very few kamlaris in the villages because the level of awareness has increased and local organizations are tracking down owners who continue the practice. With the shift toward the city, cases of rape and impregnation of Kamalaris are rising. Why are the perpetuators not brought to book? If you ask me, the state is not there for the poor and the oppressed, but only to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. Often the perpetrators are from rich and powerful class. It may sound unpleasant to some, but even human rights activists seem to be serving the interests of the rich and powerful. Landless squatters are bulldozed but the activists see no human rights violation in this. But when a poor usurps the land of the rich for subsistence farming the same activists see human rights violations. Those rights activists need to be reminded that the poor are also human. Did the political parties support your movement? I must acknowledge that the political parties lent us big support this time. It was only the government which acted in a suppressive manner. Even High Level Political Committee is said to have condemned the attack on us. Let us turn to your personal life. A former kamlari, you have now become a symbol of resistance. What was life like as a kamlari? Kamlaris live like slaves. They have to work like machines from early dawn to midnight and there is no escape from this life of servitude. They cannot live, nor can they die. When I was a kamlari, I could not meet my mother even when I was terribly ill. During the festivals, the children of the landlords would be in cheerful mood. But I would be at my saddest because festivals meant I had to work longer and harder. I never knew what it was to be happy. What inspired you to fight this system? I had to do most household chores at the landlord’s house, but would have to eat the least nutritious and unhygienic food. I was the one to wear the most ragged clothes. I was the one to be chided and abused the most. I was the one who never got medicines when ill. Around that time I started feeling that those who worked the hardest and longest are destined to be the poorest and the most neglected. The turning point came when my first baby boy was born. I decided I should do something to give my children and those of other kamlaris a better life. In fact, the source of inspiration to fight the system was my own pain and suffering. Wasn’t it hard to break with the norms and start out as a rebel? Don’t even ask! In the beginning even my own family members were against me. Other kamaiyas would come to my house in the night with sticks and knives. They would tell my parents that I was ruining their only livelihood prospect. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=55664 Nearly three months into the appointment of Khil Raj Regmi as the head of the interim election government with the sole mandate of holding new CA polls, an election date is yet to be announced. Negotiations continue to settle contentious election related issues like downsizing the Constituent Assembly and the proposed one percent threshold for PR seats in new CA polls. Thira L Bhusal and Biswas Baral talked to CPN-UML General Secretary Ishwar Pokhrel, an important interlocutor in ongoing negotiations, on a range of issues including CA polls and UML-Maoist rivalry. Of late, divisions over whether Khil Raj Regmi should resign as Chief Justice seem to be deepening, both between the political parties and even within UML. All along, our party has been speaking in favor of separation of powers and independence of judiciary. If you look at our formal documents, we have taken this stand. Yes, there are people in UML both in favor of and against the appointment of CJ as executive head. But right now, UML believes that a closed chapter should be left closed. Our focus should be on taking the open chapter to the right conclusion. Our only concern at this point is that the executive should not unduly influence the judiciary. If Regmi’s vacating the post of CJ can bring the agitating forces on board for election, it could certainly be an option. Talking about agitating parties, there has been a big debate on the proposed PR threshold and cutting down CA’s size. Where is the debate headed? This debate is unnecessary and I hold the Maoists responsible for it. They get into an agreement today, and even before the ink on the paper has dried, start opposing it. This raises a serious question mark over their political honesty. It was with the agreement of UCPN (Maoist), reflected in the 11-point political agreement and 25-point constitution amendment proposal, that the decision to reduce the size of the CA from 601 to 491 was made. But within two days, the Maoists started opposing the same provision. I don’t understand how the Maoists can get away with such blatant political dishonesty. Keshab Thokar/Republica But the Maoists say that the provision of a 491-strong CA is contingent on whether Nepali Congress and UML are ready to compromise on PR threshold and candidacy of people with criminal background. Look, the Election Commission made the proposal for smaller CA, PR threshold and barring of candidates with criminal background after widespread consultations with 33 parties represented in the erstwhile CA, including UCPN (Maoist). The EC’s consultations with the big four forces on these issues was even more rigorous. Now Pushpa Kamal Dahal accuses the Election Commission of proposing laws that are against the 11-point understanding and 25-point constitution amendment proposal. The bottom line is that the Maoists once established a culture of violence in Nepali politics. Now it is the chief force promoting anarchy and opportunism in the Nepali political arena. On the basis of its performance so far, do you believe the Khil Raj Regmi government will be able to hold new CA polls by the December deadline? We should think positively. The whole rationale for the formation of Regmi government was to hold new CA polls. He should be able to do it. CPN-UML has come to be known as a party which vigorously debates important national issues, comes to logical conclusions, but cannot implement them. Is this a right characterization? The biggest problem with UML is that it cannot own up its decisions. If you are affiliated with an organization, you should be able to uphold its collective decision. UML has not been able to do this of late. This is a sign of incompetence. Do you believe that this incapacity has had a deleterious impact on national politics? I think it depends on the context. But overall, like I said, UML has time and again displayed the tendency not to own up its collective decisions which is likely to impact certain national issues in certain ways. What can be done to rectify this situation? First of all, everyone should understand the issues objectively. That is half the battle won. One after another influential UML leader is leaving the party to join UCPN (Maoist). The perception is that the Maoists might soon decimate the UML party machinery. Let us get our facts right. Everywhere I have been recently, from Mugu to Sunsari, hundreds of people from indigenous backgrounds have queued up to join UML. But this never makes news. Maybe this inability to get the message across is our own weakness. So far as our friends who have left the party are concerned, I don’t believe they have left the party over particular issues or policies. All of them have gone after milking the party for their personal benefits. When they left, they made it appear like there was no place for them in the party. Like I said earlier, it could also be a part of the Maoist plot. The Maoists are now the leading opportunist and anarchic force which is bent on destroying the democratic forces in the country. There is a perception that UCPN (Maoist) is steadily encroaching into the space that UML created for itself as the country’s leading communist force. How do you see the Maoist-UML dynamics play out in the lead up to CA polls? The Maoists are a temporary phenomenon in Nepali politics. But even though they are a temporary phenomenon, they still need to be managed. This is our compulsion. Tell me: What is the guiding principle of the Maoists? They have none. When a political party has no guiding principle, it becomes a completely opportunistic force. Death is the ultimate destiny of all such forces. We, on the other hand, are guided by a particular philosophy: janatako baudaliya janabad (people’s multiparty democracy), which is a principle of peaceful progressive transformation. How have you seen the role of UCPN (Maoist) in Nepal’s communist movement? Communists are pro-people who are in favor of peaceful social transformation. The Maoists have emerged as a force that wants to distort this image of communism. Tell me: What came out of their bloody war? What is the justification for such widespread destruction which sowed the seed of violence in Nepali politics? The real change came to Nepal only after the violence of Maoists was thoroughly rejected. There is a belief that CPN-UML has been rendered into a very weak force ahead of the new CA polls. Our strength is our ideology, organization network and a comparatively established line of leadership which is trusted by the majority of the people. Our long history is another asset. Our cadre base plays the role of our constant critics, which says what is right and wrong outright. Compare this with the cadre base of UCPN (Maoist). First, those who want to weaken the democratic forces in the country would like to see a weak UML. Second, we fail to take ownership of important national agendas and debates. These two things send the impression of a weak party. How do you counter the accusation that CPN-UML is not an inclusive party? Let the facts speak for themselves. Go fetch our organizational charts and compare them with those of any other party in Nepal. You will see that ours is easily the most inclusive of all political parties. You like to say that the country faces an unprecedented crisis in its history. Could you elaborate? For the first time in its history, the country is in the midst of a great national debate. I call it a great national debate because of its volume, intensity, agendas, participants and likely outcomes. If the political leadership can manage this debate, the country will reach new heights; otherwise there could be devastating consequences. The great contradiction today is that our leadership is small in stature, but the challenges are all big. Isn’t there an amicable way to settle this debate? The political leadership must be able to rise above petty interests and engage in the debate, realizing the gravity of the matter. There is a need for broader political unity on important issues at this very difficult juncture. I am afraid our only option is damage control. If genuine democratic, progressive and nationalist forces can come to the same page and gain command over elected bodies, we can check the situation from further deteriorating. Otherwise, there is no hope for the country. For the new CA to produce a democratic constitution, there must be a two-third majority of democratic forces. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=55568 Mega Bank Ltd on Sunday launched initial public offering (IPO) to raise Rs 699 million from the market. The bank´s IPO has come at a time when investors are losing confidence given the persisting slowdown in stock market. Republic caught up with Anil Shah, CEO of the bank, to talk about the bank´s IPO, financial performance and future plans. How confident are you about the IPO? Do you think it will attract investors given the unfavorable investment climate in the country? We have set up 133 collection centers in 44 districts to collect share applications. We are confident that we will get overwhelming response from investors. We have four strong reasons to be confident. First, Mega´s board comprises of well-known economists, professors and others who have their own identity and expertise in this field. We have 1,219 promoters from 63 districts. Secondly, Mega´s management team is a pool of efficient banking professionals who can ensure best managerial performance. Third, our financial performance over the couple of years since its inception is impressive. Fourth, our slogan -- ´Halo to Hydro´ -- represents our inclusive nature of business. We have introduced ´Mega IPO Savings Account´ offering 6.5 percent interest to encourage people interested to invest in Mega´s shares. We are giving 9.5 percent interest for the amount that is returned to the applicants after allotment of shares. Photo: Republica How do you guarantee better returns to the investors? Though no one can provide guarantee on returns, our growing popularity, better financial performance and efficient management team are the factors that help us establish better impression among investors. Our first dividend distribution will be big as we will share profit that we generated over the past three years. Then we will distribute dividend on the basis of yearly profit. In this way, investors also can earn attractive short term return from the investment. Even the investors who want to retain their shares will also get attractive return in the long run. Could you please elaborate on Mega´s financial performance over the past two years? We are really satisfied with Mega´s financial performance over these years. Our operating profit increased to Rs 71.8 million in the second year from Rs 24.3 million recorded in the first year. And, we have already earned profit of Rs 130 million until the end of third quarter of the current fiscal year. We have succeeded in raising the number of our customers to over 100,000. Mega currently have deposits worth Rs 12.84 billion, while it has disbursed loans amounting to Rs 11.61 billion. We have a network of 28 branch offices, 45 branchless banking outlets and 31 ATM terminals across the country. You have a very interesting slogan ´Halo to Hydro´. How successful have been in implementing your vision? Ours has been a very unique slogan in the financial sector. This has helped us popularize our vision of inclusiveness. Our business model is shaped in the form of pyramid in which corporate sector is at the top, small and medium enterprises are at the middle and micro enterprises at the bottom as our lending sectors. We have also been expanding branchless banking service in rural areas. We have the target of expanding this service to 45 areas by the end of this fiscal year. Mega has also set a target to increase lending to small and medium enterprises to 40 percent of the total lending. We are also promoting micro credit though its share in total lending hovers around 3 percent. Initially, I was also not interested in expanding banking services to rural areas. But I realized later that concentrating on corporate clients along is not sufficient for complete, sustainable and successful banking. Then we started investing on SMEs and micro credit sector. However, our effort alone is not sufficient. The government should also come up with policies that promote entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial development will help generate employment and develop the banking sector. What are you future plans and strategies? Our strategy is to gradually reduce investment in corporate sector and raise investment in SMEs and micro enterprises. Banks can face huge problem if corporate houses come into crisis. Crisis in SMEs and micro firms does not affect banks much. However, it doesn´t mean that we are going to ignore corporate clients. We are also planning to add 50 more branch offices in five years. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=55346 Nepal today is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the first ascent of Mount Everest on May 29, 1953. Frits Vrijlandt, the president of Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme (UIAA) which is popularly known as International Federation of Mountaineering, is in Kathmandu to attend the Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Vrijlandt is a well-known mountaineer from the Netherlands who has climbed all major peaks in North and South America, Europe, Africa and the Himalayas, including Mount Everest. Republica’s Nabin Khatiwada sat down with Vrijlandt for a little chat on Tuesday. You are here to celebrate Everest Diamond Jubilee. Do you have any special message for Nepalis and mountaineers around the world on this special day? Yes, I do. First of all it’s a great honor for me to be here again in beautiful Nepal. I have very good memories of climbing and mountaineering here. Nepal has many of the most beautiful mountains in the world, and of course the highest, Sagarmatha. We are here to celebrate the 60th anniversary of its first ascent, which was a great achievement in mountaineering history. There are so many beautiful mountains besides Everest to climb here in Nepal. This year alone, 520 climbers have reached the summit of Everest. We get to hear of ‘traffic jams’ on Everest. Is Everest an easy climb these days? I know that the number of climbers has increased dramatically in the last few years, to up to 500 summiteers a year. Of course, it’s the highest mountain and it attracts people from all over the world. My concern is that it also attracts inexperienced people. And I think if you want to climb Mount Everest, you first have to have some experience on 6,000 and 7,000 meter peaks in Nepal. Get experienced with altitude, of climbing in snow and ice, and in using harness and crampons. If you have these experiences, then you should think about the Everest. There are some reports suggesting that a ladder might be installed at the famous Hillary Step. How do you take this idea? There are two standard routes to the summit of Mt Everest. One is from the north (Chinese side) where there has been a ladder on the second step for more than 50 years since the first ascent from that side. On the south side, there are so many climbers these days that you experience dangerous delays and congestions at the Hillary Step, which is far above 8,000 meters. And, that’s especially dangerous for all the Sherpa people helping climbers. So, first of all the climbers must be more experienced. Second, a ladder can be a solution to avoid this congestion. But not on the top Hillary Step. It must be to the side so that the Hillary Step stays as it is. Will not it end the exclusivity of Mt Everest? Like I said, there has always been a ladder on the Chinese side. Everybody is using it. The ladder is not supposed to make it easier. It is not a substitute to the Hillary step. So there are two routes: one for going up via the Hillary step and second for going down by the side of the Hillary Step. Are there any safety concerns regarding this issue? Safety will increase if people climbing Mt Everest have more experience, have been at high altitude before and know how to use their equipments. That’s very important. It’s also good to have a rescue team of experienced Sherpa climbers up there. If there are many people going up, they can limit mountaineers. Your organization also lobbies for the preservation of mountain environment. Is the environment of Mt Everest under threat? Protection of mountain environment is very important. It’s the most beautiful landscape in the world and it’s also vulnerable. All mountaineers should bring back their garbage, especially the human waste. There are systems in place at other mountains like Mount McKinley in Alaska. Everybody is forced to bring back all the waste, otherwise they are fined. A lot of garbage has been taken off Mount Everest and it’s much cleaner than it used to be. But the increasing number of people is something that has to be carefully managed. What is your suggestion for Nepal government, tourism entrepreneurs and mountaineers for protection of the mountain environment? It’s important that you don’t leave any waste, and that’s very easy to do. Just bring back all the waste you have, including human waste. The other thing we should be careful with is cutting trees within the national park. The Everest region is famous for climbing and trekking. How could Nepal diversify the Everest area to develop it as a tourism destination? It’s such a beautiful place and it’s a great place to go. It’s a national park. It’s very important not only to protect flora-fauna but also the local Sherpa culture. If this can be done, alternative tourism avenues can be opened. How can we support local communities to achieve sustainable development of mountain areas? It’s important to make sure that everybody in the national park obeys rules. For instance, tree planting projects are being initiated. Last Sunday, we planted some new trees in Khumjung village, which is very good sign. Hopefully, many more trees will be planted. The other important thing is take care whenever people there pose a threat to the environment. But, if you avoid pollution of water streams and tracks, I’m sure it’s possible to increase the number of tourists visiting Khumbu region. We do have other famous mountains besides Everest. What could Nepal do to promote them? There are many mountains above 8,000 meters, all beautiful mountains, but most of the attention naturally goes to the highest mountain in the world. I understand that Nepal will organize Diamond Jubilee events to commemorate the first ascent of the other mountains in coming years. So there will be a lot of attention and promotion of these mountains. Once, climbing and mountaineering were a part of Olympics. As your organization identifies itself as a sports organization, what are you doing to get it back in Olympics? There used to be an Olympic Award back in 1930’s for mountaineering achievements, and also in early 50’s. UIAA has been an IOC member for a decade. Now the IOC focuses mainly on competition sports. UIAA is the governing body of one of the winter sports, which is called the ice-climbing competition. It’s a small sport and we are working to develop ice-climbing as an Olympic Sports within eight to 12 years. Your last words on Nepal? I see a good future for mountaineering. It’s important that Nepal promotes its other beautiful mountains (besides Everest). There are over 1,300 beautiful peaks in Nepal and the majority can be scaled. The unclimbed peaks meanwhile continue to pose challenges of their own. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=55063 After quitting CPN-UML last November over differences with party leadership on identity issue of indigenous communities, Ashok Rai has gone on to form and head the Federal Socialist Party. The new outfit is pushing for single-ethnic identity based federalism and inclusion of all ethnic minorities in state mechanism. Mahabir Paudyal talked to Rai about the upcoming CA polls and the party’s strategy. Your party seems to be rather inactive these days. Why so? That’s not the case. Call it a coincidence, but today (May 22) marks six months of the formation of Federal Socialist Party. We have been working to expand the party base at village, district, regional and central levels. The media may not have prioritized our issues, but we have been conducting various activities every single day. So far we have formed city, village and ward level party committees in 45 districts. We have formed our sister organization, Progressive Students Union, which will take part in upcoming student union polls. Likewise, Federal Socialist Youth Association, Association of Intellectuals and Professionals, Federal Socialist Women’s Organization and Federal Socialist Cultural Federation are already in place. We will declare Federal Socialist Peasants and Worker Federation pretty soon. Sounds like you are fully prepared for new polls. Why do you oppose election then? The situation is not favorable for polls. We have never opposed election, nor have we ever said we would not participate. As a democratic force, we believe in bringing change through people’s mandate. The important question is not whether we should go into new CA polls. It is rather if the polls will be ever conducted, and how! The political climate is not election-friendly, not yet. Even the government seems to have realized this, and has not declared an election date yet. We believe that all political forces should come together for polls. Broader consensus is necessary. We cannot leave any party behind and move ahead, because this is the CA election. Otherwise, the polls won’t be able to achieve the desired outcome. Keshab Thoker/Republica How do you defend your demand of the revival of the old Constituent Assembly? We still believe that CA revival is the best and easiest way to break the protracted deadlock and move towards an inclusive constitution. We said let us revive CA if it can ensure a constitution and move to the election option only if revival fails to work out. But CPN-UML and Nepali Congress were never ready for this. As a result, we are in a catch-22 situation today. Why are you opposed to the Khil Raj Regmi election government? We are opposed to the 11-point agreement among the four parties and the 25-point constitutional amendment. These agreements are unconstitutional and violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers. Yet we can move ahead with a new agreement. For this we need to summon an all-party meeting. We are against reducing CA size from 601. If we must reduce the size let us do away with 26 member nomination provision and bring the size to 575. But what the four parties did through the 25-point decree was to deprive people belonging to indigenous communities from being nominated to the new CA. The other factor is that there are more than two million Nepali adults living in foreign countries. This comprises a huge percentage of the electorate. We should make provision for those living abroad to cast their votes in an election which will be of paramount national importance. These are some of our differences. Don’t you think addressing all your demands will take time? And won’t they contribute to deferral of polls yet again? No, it won’t take long to address our issues. The Big Four leaders are wasting precious time because they are incapable of coming to a solution acceptable to all. If the election was the only alternative, why did not NC and UML go into polls that Baburam Bhattarai had announced? After all, he was a prime minister elected by the parliament. Election could not happen because NC and UML needlessly wasted one year. Even now, election related ordinance has not been issued simply because the Big Four leaders have not been able to come to any agreement on the issue. Unless we have election act in place, how can we start poll preparations? The four parties are responsible for delaying polls and for prolonging transition. Whom do you hold primarily responsible for prolonging transition? It would not be right to single out one party. Yet, looking back, NC and UML are clearly the most responsible for the protracted transition because they were neither ready to join Bhattarai government nor face polls under his leadership. This is the root cause of the current mess. Your party is often blamed for exclusively focusing on the agendas of indigenous communities. Let there be no doubt, our party is not only promoting the interests of indigenous nationalities. We are increasing our outreach to make our support base more inclusive ahead of the polls. We aim to establish ourselves as a strong alternative force in the national arena. Are electoral alliances on the cards? Or will FSP face the polls alone? Those parties who believe in the principle of “federalism with identity, constitution with federalism and constitution from CA” are our possible allies. Yet election alliance or talmel is not that simple. Question of seats, personalities and agendas play a vital role. If an alliance does not pan out, we will face the polls alone. On principle, NC, UML and Maoists seem to be on the same platform. Why the differences then? You are right. Even NC and UML have begun to raise the issue of federalism with identity. But why could they not do so during the tenure of the last CA? People must find out. I believe Nepali people have understood the matter clearly. You cannot fool all the people all the time. In time, it will be clear who are for and against federalism with identity. Both crow and nightingale are black in color. The distinction becomes clear only in the spring. Nightingale sings, the crow remains mum. Crows and nightingales were clearly divided in the last CA. While nightingales stood for identity based federalism, the crows opposed it. Those who are pretending to be nightingales now need not take the trouble. People have seen for themselves who stand for what. The recent convention of Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) has formally dropped the idea of single ethnic identity-based federalism. What is your take? I don’t believe NEFIN has made any such decision. Even if it has, we are not bound by NEFIN’s decision. We are an independent political entity. There is no question of backtracking from agenda of federalism with identity. Do you imply single ethnic-identity? Yes, we are for single-ethnic identity. The provinces should be named so as to reflect single ethnic identity. This has been misinterpreted and misunderstood as ethnic state, jatiya rajya. The truth is that it is the existing state structure that is ethnic in nature in which high castes are dominant. We are opposed to this sort of ethnic state. We are demanding that all ethnicities, languages, cultures, colors, regions and historical legacies of all the people be respected and acknowledged in the new state structure. Only this can emotionally unify Nepalis. If we ignore culture and identity of one particular community, it cannot strengthen unity and harmony among people. Instead, it will lead to more conflicts and strife. There is yet another misconception—that single ethnic identity state will only serve one particular ethnic community. They believe that Limbuwan will only serve Limbus and subordinate other communities. But even Lilmbuwan will be multi-ethnic in character. All the people of that state will have equal rights and privileges. Our goal is not to deprive people of other ethnicities their genuine rights and privileges. All political parties know this. But they feign ignorance and spread misconception. How do you rate your party’s prospects in the upcoming polls? The way we have received tremendous support from the people, we see bright prospect for our party. If the election had taken place in June/July, perhaps we would not have fared well. Now that election is likely to be held in November, our prospects are much brighter. We believe we will emerge as a strong force in the new CA. Many of your former colleagues from CPN-UML are defecting to UCPN (Maoist). Any comments? It would not be wise to make any comments on UML now. Anything I say can be misinterpreted as biased and prejudiced. But since you ask, let me tell you what I have heard: Many more are going to defect UML in the days ahead. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=54722 Considered as an intellectual among Madheshi leaders, Jitendra Narayan Dev is General Secretary of Madhesi People’s Rights Forum-Democratic (MPRF-D). He represents MPRF-D in cross-party meetings and attends High Level Political Committee Meeting on behalf of his party. Mahabir Paudyal and Gani Ansari sat down with him to discuss election preparation, prospect of election alliance among Madheshi forces, Lokman Singh Karki and overall Madheshi politics. How are you preparing for upcoming CA polls? There have been talks of a broader electoral alliance among Madhesh-based parties under Mahantha Thakur. We have started preparations on full scale with the goal of establishing our party as the third largest national force in the new polls. We have been campaigning to expand party base nationwide. It would be really good if an electoral alliance can be established among Madheshi parties. If there can be unity among likeminded Madheshi forces, it would be even better. Electoral alliance is a secondary agenda. If the alliance is not possible, we have been discussing about electoral adjustment (talmel) among the parties. These agendas have not taken shape because an election date has not been fixed yet. But all three possibilities are being deliberated during formal and informal discussions. Even the constituent parties in the United Democratic Madheshi Front seem sharply divided. How will any unity or talmel be possible in such a situation? National politics is deeply polarized. Madheshi parties are no exception. But over the basic issues such as identity, inclusion, autonomous Madhesh province, powerful federal structure, and establishing Madheshi forces as decisive interventionist force in national politics, there is no difference among us. Instead, the idea of a broader alignment on Madhesh is gaining ground. BHASHWOR OJHA/REPUBLICA But leaders like Sarat Singh Bhandari and Upendra Yadav have ruled out any election alliance, especially with your party. Despite differences between some Madheshi forces, issues like inclusion, identity, autonomy for Madhesh and strong federal set up unite us. We have been trying to achieve these common goals collectively. Even when we were divided in the erstwhile CA, we were together when it came to defending Madheshi issues. Bhandari and Yadav may have said so on the spurt of the moment. But we are together on vital issues. We are united whenever there is an attempt to sideline Madheshi agendas. You mean there is possibility of unity with Yadav and Bhandari? We have been talking about it. Around a fortnight ago I and Upendraji were together for ten days in the US. Before that we discussed many issues during a seminar in Chandigarh. I learn that party president Bijaya Gachchadhar, Upendra Yadav, Mahantha Thakur and Mahendra Yadav are in constant touch through formal and informal channels. After all, every Madheshi force has realized that contesting polls individually won’t help institutionalize achievements of Madhesh Andolan. Things are moving positively. It would be immature to make all the details public now. What will be your main election agenda? Because this is CA polls, we will focus on socio-political agenda, not economic ones. We will raise the issue of identity, language, culture and federalism. People seem tired of hearing of these amorphous ideas. Isn’t what they want jobs, development and economic wellbeing? You are right. But we will be able to frame policies for development and employment after we have an inclusive constitution in place. Then the Constituent Assembly will be transformed into a parliament which will work to address the concerns you have raised. That does not mean we will remain silent on economic issues. We will make our economic agendas public through our election manifesto. We will focus on hydropower and infrastructure development. If we can ensure these two things, it will help us solve many other problems. Let’s come to the controversy over Lokman Singh Karki. Your party president apparently believes Karki is the most competent man to head CIAA. Look, we are a democratic force. And democrats have morals. I remember late Ganeshman Singh saying democracy without morality breeds criminals. I believe in this principle. As regards Karki’s appointment, it is no time to discuss whether he is the right or wrong person because he has assumed the office and a writ has been filed against him in the apex court. But dissent against Karki started to surface only after HLPC had recommended his name to CC. All four parties in HLPC—UML, NC, Maoists and UMDF—had signed the recommendation. If we had opposed it, perhaps they would have called us an anti-election force. We were compelled to back Karki because we had already put our signature on the paper. We are not defending Karki as a person; we are defending the decision of which we were one of the signatories. But those protesting Karki’s appointment are doing so on moral grounds. Personally I don’t believe Karki was the uncontested candidate. There could have been more capable and qualified candidates to head CIAA. But you cannot write off someone saying he or she was king’s man or was involved in suppressing people’s movement. If we want to make such arguments the basis for selecting someone for public office, the arguments should be applicable to everyone indicted by investigation bodies like Malik and Rayamajhi commissions. But many of those indicted by these commissions are in high office today. It is not right to single out one person. If Karki cannot prove his high moral character in office or fails to carry out his duties, the next parliament can impeach him. Conflicting reports have come out as to who recommended Karki. What’s the truth? Only Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Jhalanath Khanal, Sushil Koirala and Bijay Kumar Gachchadhar may know the truth, for they were the ones who settled on Karki. Only these four personalities attended the meeting which decided on Karki’s appointment. So far as I know, there had been informal discussions among Big Four leaders on the issue long before. They had agreed on Karki during informal talks. The decision of informal talks was given final shape in HLPC meeting. As Prachanda has said, UMDF and UCPN (Maoist) took the initiative and NC and UML lent their support and the minute was prepared accordingly. Not a single member present in the meeting had objected to the decision. Some say the proposal came all the way from India. Those who believe in this theory are undermining status, credibility and strength of Nepali leaders, Nepali political parties, Nepali people and Nepal as a sovereign nation. They suffer from inferiority complex. So they smell foreign hand in everything that happens in Nepal. I say this is an anti-national and slave mentality. I pity such people. Some Madhesi leaders are in favor of single-Madhesh. What is your take? Major Madheshi forces including our party have agreed on two provinces. That’s our bottom line. We will take into account identity and viability as the basis for province delineation. By identity I mean ethnicity, culture, language, history and geography and by viability, the economic strength of a particular region. There is a growing concern that the Big Four are not ready to face polls and are projecting CPN-Maoist as a hurdle just to delay election. That’s not true. I am sure an election date will be declared within the next ten days. And we will reach an agreement on PR threshold, CA size and candidates’ eligibility within the same timeframe. I believe the government will draft an election ordinance and forward it to the President very soon. Many fringe parties are opposed to one percent threshold on PR seats in new CA. Will the idea be dropped? If it is proving to be a hurdle, let us do away with it. It is likely that the threshold will be removed as many are opposed to this provision. We are going for CA election which is supposed to be an inclusive body. Those who oppose threshold are not wrong because it limits people’s representation. After all, there was no threshold in the last CA election. So why is Election Commission making it a big issue? EC is not supposed to make laws, it is supposed to work according to the existing laws. Will the election date be announced before taking agitating forces into confidence? It could be either way. I don’t think CPN-Maoist will come around for election right away. But if we address some of their genuine demands like scrapping the threshold, it will build mutual trust and create an environment for their participation in election. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=54370 Two months into the tenure of Khil Raj Regmi as the head of the compromise election government, the date for new CA polls remains a mystery. Why the long delay in announcement of election date? How are the preparations? Biswas Baral and Gani Ansari sat down with Chief Election Commissioner Nilkantha Uprety to find out. [break] It has been two months since the formation of the election government, but the new election date has still not been announced. Why so? There are some basics which need to be met before announcing an election date. The first of those is having election-related laws in place. Various groups have opposed our draft ordinance on amendment of the Election of Members of the Constituent Assembly Act, 2013. They believe the proposed ordinance doesn’t represent their interests and could dilute their presence in the future legislature. This issue still awaits political understanding. But also remember that in the history of Nepal, the date of election has never been announced more than six months in advance. Thus despite differences among political forces on many election-related issues, we are confident there will soon be some kind of an understanding and an election date can be announced. How does not having a fixed election date affect poll preparations? Mainly, the Election Commission needs the requisite electoral laws to clear the hurdles towards timely polls. Such laws will help people understand the nitty-gritty of election and allow political parties to plan their electoral strategy accordingly. But by and large it does not affect the Election Commission’s poll preparations. What the announcement of a date will do is convince people that there will actually be polls and they will start preparing for it psychologically. Yet I believe that it would be wise to announce a date only after the political parties can agree on electoral laws. Announcing a poll date in haste without solid political grounding could invite more problems in the future. BHASHWOR OJHA/REPUBLICA Why have differences emerged over electoral laws? Didn’t the Election Commission consult relevant stakeholders before proposing such laws? The 25-point ordinance to remove constitutional difficulties had stipulated 240 seats under FPTP component and 240 seats under PR component, with 11 representatives to be nominated in the new CA. The Election Commission drafted its electoral laws with this as its point of departure. But the Election Commission did propose certain improvements like a minimal threshold for representation in the CA. The other proposal was to bar those with proven criminal background from contesting election for six years. We also want the electoral expenses of the political parties to be transparent. All these proposals, each of which has strong international precedent, would strengthen the democratic process. But ultimately, it is up to the political parties to decide. How would you evaluate your preparations for new CA polls? Our preparations are in full swing. The most important task of voter list update is taking place right across the country. We hope to complete the process in all remote areas in the next two months, after which the urban hubs will be covered. At the same time, the Home Ministry has been distributing citizenship certificates in conjunction with the voter list update. The process of registration of political parties with the Election Commission has also started, with 24 parties registering so far. Do you have enough time to complete necessary preparations ahead of the November-December deadline? Yes, we do. But we cannot afford to waste time. Look what happened in the past when we kept delaying vital poll-related tasks. Election had to be postponed time and again. But we are also capable of holding free and fair polls in a very short time. In 1994, we had just 65 days to prepare for the mid-term parliamentary election, yet we managed it. But back then we had clear electoral laws and readymade electoral rolls. There was law and order and compared to now, the security situation was a lot better as well. Talking about security situation, there were obstructions in voter roll update sometime ago. What is the situation now? There were some obstructions at the start, but right now the joint citizenship-voter registration team has been carrying outs its duty unhindered. When will a new election date be announced? The announcement of a new date is the prerogative of the government. It is not for the Election Commission to decide. But haven’t you given the government some kind of a deadline? No, we haven’t. What we have been demanding are clear electoral laws. I believe that once these laws can be finalized, the election date can be settled in no time. The most time-consuming task is voter roll update, which is forging ahead full steam. I don’t believe we will be pressed for time even if there is a little delay in announcement of poll date. Having said that, I believe it is important that people are assured that there will definitely be polls within the scheduled time. Won’t the delineation of new electoral constituencies be time-consuming? I believe that this is largely a political issue. Once the political question is settled, technically, it is not time consuming at all. Even if there are changes, they will be few, and the total number of electoral constituencies will remain around 240, the number in the last CA polls. If new electoral constituencies can be delineated even two months prior to the poll date, we should not have a problem. There are rumors that the Election Commission has already reached an understanding with political parties not to change any of the important provisions in the last CA polls, including the size of the CA. There has been no such understanding. We have proposed certain amendments to existing electoral laws, which the government has been discussing with other stakeholders. There has been no final decision as of now. Certain groups have raised issues about the likelihood of their reduced representation in the new CA polls (if the one percent threshold is followed). Ultimately, it is a political decision. Our concerns as a technical body mandated to hold free and fair polls are valid today and will remain so tomorrow. Even so, if any of our proposals are unacceptable under the current circumstances, the government should say so. We should settle on what is feasible at present, and with that understanding, settle a new poll date at the earliest. The Election Commission has reportedly been talking with dissident outfits like Mohan Baidya’s CPN-Maoist directly after they refused to talk to the government. Is that the case? We have been holding discussions with all stakeholders: the political parties, civil society, those who support this government and those who oppose it. We have been trying to convince the dissenting forces that in a democratic system, there is no alternative to going to the people. For this purpose, the Election Commission is their common platform. Remember that the Election Commission can only assure free and fair election. Anything more is beyond its ambit. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=54330 Stewart Beck, Ambassador of Canada to Nepal and India, is concluding his three-day Nepal visit on Wednesday. Beck was in Nepal leading a team of businessmen from Canada. Launch of Canada-Nepal Business Executive Committee and identification of investment avenues mainly in hydropower and infrastructure sectors were the main objectives of the visit. Bhoj Raj Poudel of Republica caught up with Beck to talk about the prospects of attracting Canadian investment in Nepal. Excerpts:[break] What encouraged you to lead a business delegation to Nepal at a time when the country is going through a transitional phase and even local investors are shying away from making fresh investment? Business can happen even when political situation is fluid. I have been focusing on economic development of Nepal. I want investors from Canada to come to Nepal and share expertise they have in different sectors such as aviation and hydropower. To create economic opportunities, we have to focus on developing ties through talks at different levels. The meeting with the business people from Nepal some months ago encouraged us organize a delegation of Canadian investors to Nepal. Is the visit limited to just taking stock of the situation here? Canadian companies are trying to explore investment opportunities in Nepal. There are certain things that the Nepali side should do first. The first is to improve security situation. There should be an environment where investors feel secure once they make investment. The second thing is improving governance. There should be regulation in all the levels with sound governance. These are the two things that will be considered by any international investors before actually coming with investment. Nepal should understand that and has to work on that direction. Investors from Canada are really looking for investment avenues. Do you think that the security situation and governance in Nepal will be improved in the near future? I think so. Nepal is a young democracy and young democracy goes through these kinds of problems. The formation of council of ministers and setting the timeframe to hold election is positive development. It has actually laid a foundation to be hopeful about the future. Have you approached the Nepal government regarding providing protection to foreign investors, especially those from Canada? We have talked about signing the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Nepal. Discussions on signing foreign investment protection agreement between the two countries are also underway. Availability of market is an incentive for investors. Nepal is near from India, which is a very large market. It should explore the Indian market first. For that, Nepal should expedite the process to sign power trade agreement (PTA) with and India. The process of signing PTA between Nepal and India is in a limbo. Are you thinking about taking steps to make that agreement happen? This issue has to be dealt with by Nepal and India. But you can be a facilitator? Yes, of course we can. I had talked about it in my previous visit as well. It´s a fact that the investors are looking to make investment in Nepal. I think India also realizes this situation. This visit is also a kind of steps toward developing harmonious relationship among the business people from India, Canada and Nepal. We can definitely create conducive environment for conversation between Nepal and India for working toward signing PTA. How is your impression about the Indian eagerness to develop hydropower in Nepal and import it? Is India ready to sign the PTA? India needs energy and it is aware of it. Nepal is rich in natural resources. And I am sure India realizes that Nepal could be its source for energy in the future. I think India has to work on opening up the ways to import power from Nepal in order to achieve double digit growth. Are Canadian investors interested to put money here if PTA is signed between Nepal and India? Yes. There should be some basic things like security, governance and certainty of market for investors to come here. Is Canada going to make any substantial change in its official development assistance? Though we have closed our bilateral office in Nepal, our multilateral project is running here. The closure of the office was part of our country´s policy. Not only in Nepal, bilateral offices were closed in other countries as well. Nepal is strategically located between two giant countries -- India and China. However, there will not be any significant policy change in the near future. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=53968 Since 1891, May 1 has been celebrated as international workers’ day the world over. The day is considered a special occasion to voice the concerns of workers, especially the daily wage earners. On the eve of May Day Mahabir Paudyal and Bhoj Raj Poudel caught up with Ramdeep Acharya, the coordinator of CPN-Maoist affiliated All Nepal Revolutionary Trade Union Federation, to discuss worker-owner relations, the state of workers in the country, their problems, the state’s duty toward them and the significance of May Day.[break] How do you evaluate the state of workers in Nepal? Nepal is not industrialized, but nor is it an agricultural economy. The number of industry workers is very low. But even this low number is not getting even the basic minimum services. The situation of the workers is miserable. But at times labor unions themselves seem to be standing against industrialization. They have led to closure of one company after another. We admit there have been a few such incidents. But you have to understand that state policies have facilitated the process of industrialization wherever it has taken off. Do not forget, workers came into being only after the groundwork for industrialization had been laid. Before industrialization, workers worked as slaves on the land. PHOTO: CHANDRA SHEKHAR KARKI After industrialization, their status changed into paid daily wage earners. How have they ever created any hurdles in industrialization? Regarding Nepal, there are three reasons behind snail’s pace of industrialization. One, the feudal system accumulated wealth but spent it for luxury, not in productive investment. Second, those who had wealth and invested it in industries could not compete with big multinational companies. The big fish gobbled up small ones. Third, the focus was on centralized investment, not on collective investment. Although the political system has changed and the country has become a republic, the vestiges of feudal order are still evident. As a result, foreign capitalists have become more powerful and Nepal’s own entrepreneurs have not received proper support and protection from the state. If these things are corrected, Nepal can move toward true industrialization. How do you classify the workers of Nepal? Professionally, there are two broad categories: physical laborers and mental laborers. And there is a big difference between those who work in the multinational companies and those who work in national companies and others who are self-employed. But in terms of political and economic rights, their situation is almost the same. Compared to workers abroad, what do you think Nepali workers lack the most? Compared to workers in Europe and America, Nepali workers have no political rights. Their concerns are not raised at the state level. It is hard for them to sustain their livelihood in this age of galloping inflation. And remember, workers in Nepal do not have big demands. They want to educate their children in moderately standard schools, so that they can acquire modern education. They want to take their children to well-equipped hospitals when they fall ill. And they want a good shelter. Sadly, Nepali workers are deprived of even these basics. But is it not the political parties who brought about this situation? They are often accused of forgetting workers once they reach power. You are right. Nepal’s political struggle has its roots in labor movement. Take 1950’s anti-Rana movement. It started from Biratnagar Jute Mill, which finally ousted the Rana regime. I have found that the parties reach out to the laborers, peasants and people from the downtrodden class when they have to ignite political movements. But once political rights have been achieved they forget the workers. This trend continues to this day. Who should address the concerns of the workers? The state, of course. The state has to provide work opportunities as well as decent wages. Nepal is the country with the highest wage rate but lowest productivity in South Asia. Why so? You have to look at it from another angle too. If you compare South Asia with other countries in the world, it is the region where labor rights have been least protected. Take the recent case of building collapse in Bangladesh which caused the death of hundreds of laborers. This is a blot to whole of South Asia. Similar is the case in Pakistan. One third of the poor population of the world lives in India. Workers don’t have easy lives anywhere in South Asia. Everywhere, they are living like bonded slaves. Why do you often stand against international companies? You may be hinting at KFC shutdown last August. Let me make it clear: In KFC, we had merely asked that our right to form unions and associations as per Nepal’s laws be respected. It was the management that decided to shut the company. If some company closes just because we ask for our just rights, we are not to blame. You mean trade unions are not to blame in any such incidents? I never said that. But one cannot hold trade union responsible for the failure of the state. Of course, there are problems with trade unions. Some of the union leaders sell their loyalty to the management board and betray their colleagues. Such activities of few leaders defame trade unions. Why do management board and workers tussle at almost all companies in Nepal? Such tussles are universal. There are two ways to solve it. One, through dialogue. But this can solve the problem only temporarily. To solve it in the long term, there should be participation of workers in the both process of production and distribution. So far the workers are used only for production. They should be given distribution responsibilities as well. But I am hopeful that the unfairness in distribution will end one day. The awareness level among workers is high and modern communication technology has turned the whole world into a global village. This is creating a base for equitable distribution. What exactly should the state do for the workers? First, there should be a national economic policy. This policy should be devised by identifying the kind of industries that can sustain and grow and compete with other companies. Then the policy should determine who should be allowed to invest and who not. Second, to support that policy the state has to produce skilled human resources. If we can produce skilled laborers they can live dignified lives wherever they work, at home or abroad. Third, the rights of the trade unions have to be ensured at the policy making level. Fourth, their professional issues should be addressed. If we can achieve these four things, trade unions will be free from controversies and the state can benefit from its labor force. But for all this, the current state structure should be changed. What kind of state structure do we need? Not city centric, not the one like we have today that serves the interests of the wealthy upper-classes. How are you going to celebrate May Day? There will be rallies and we will hold mass meetings in major cities. In Kathmandu, we will conduct a program at Basantapur. How will it help the workers? I understand May Day celebration won’t have any meaning if it is observed just for the heck of it. This day provides an opportunity to identify problems facing the workers. Besides, such celebrations keep the workers alert and informed about their rights. The popularity of the day is rising. And there is a growing concern worldwide that the day should be remembered as the day when the laborers achieved their just rights. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=53644 Active in national politics since the Panchayat days, Sharad Singh Bhandari continues to be a key actor in Madhesh politics after 2008. Bhandari broke away from Madhesi People’s Right Forum (Democratic) in 2012 over differences with party chairman Bijaya Kumar Gachchadhar and formed National Madhes Socialist Party (NMSP), which he leads as party chairman. Bhandari was a key negotiator from Federal Democratic Forum, an alliance of six agitating Madhesi and Janajati parties, which held talks with the government on Sunday. Mahabir Paudyal and Gani Ansari sat down with him to discuss the recent talks with the government, his reservations with the current government, the prospects of Madhesi parties in the upcoming polls, electoral alliances, among other issues.[break] How did the talks with the government go? We put our 13-point charter of concerns to the government. The essence of the 13-point concerns is that favorable atmosphere should be created for result-oriented and meaningful polls. The talks went amicably. The focal point was how to conduct polls by November, how to make it free and fair and how to take all the forces in the process into confidence. We found the government committed to holding polls. We hope things can be more or less settled in the next round of talks. But unless the political parties cooperate with the government it cannot hold polls. In fact, given the apolitical nature of the current cabinet, it can only act as a facilitator to the election process. PHOTO: BHASWOR OJHA But don’t you believe some of your conditions, like the dissolution of HLPC, are hard to address? Look, we have been saying from the very beginning that HLPC is unconstitutional and illegitimate. HLPC is not the outcome of political consensus, so there is no obligation for other parties to endorse it. You may recall that before this government was formed big parties were divided into two camps—one led by NC and other by UCPN (Maoist). Politics of prohibition was becoming entrenched. Even then we stood against such polarization which would lead us to more conflict. Also the President had been calling on the parties to build broad political consensus. When the four parties started their homework for the formation of current government, we had clearly told them that consensus among four parties alone would not suffice and they had to accommodate all the forces. But in the end, they did precisely the opposite by forging the 11-point agreement and getting the President to endorse the 25-point amendment to the constitution. We have serious reservations over this. We have been questioning the procedural, constitutional and legal basis of HLPC. HLPC needs to be dissolved because it is controlling government activities. But what is wrong with other parties joining the HLPC? HLPC will not become legitimate just because we join it. We must hold election, which is the only way out of the impasse. The primary goal of this government is to hold fair and free polls, for which the government needs to be free of any political influence in the first place. HLPC is curbing the government’s freedom. This is our concern. How can the government which had no role in forming HLPC dissolve it? We understand that the government did not form HLPC. But the government needs to make a couple of things clear. If it is the figurehead of the four parties, it should declare that the current government is four parties’ government. But if it is free from HLPC influence, it should clearly tell the people so. Some parties in the HLPC have been demanding that the government does HLPC’s bidding, and still the government is keeping mum. This is objectionable. Let’s suppose HLPC is turned into an all-party mechanism. What would your stand be in that case? There is a clear provision in the interim constitution for a broader political consensus. The question is not of how many parties get into HLPC but of forging consensus among all the parties. Once we achieve such a consensus there will be no need for a mechanism like HLPC. If the government needs cooperation and counsel from political parties, why doesn’t it call for an all-party meeting and take the parties’ views on election related issues? After all, the President had started this practice. He had called all the parties and taken their views. He never needed any mechanism. Why does Khil Raj Regmi need one? We removed the phrase ‘consensus between seven parties and Maoists’ and introduced ‘political consensus’ in the interim constitution. HLPC has gone against this principle. You have been demanding 60 percent proportionate representation in the new CA. Won’t this make the body disproportionately large? First, let us be clear: neither the 601-size nor the PR percentage was a stumbling block to constitution making in the last CA. Second, we are not demanding a big CA; we would be fine even if we have a 200-member CA. We are opposed to the reduced percentage under PR system. There should be 40 percent seats for first past the post (FPTP) and 60 for PR, as was the case in the last CA, in order to ensure representation of as many minority groups as possible. Why do you oppose the provision of nominating CA members? This provision had been introduced to accommodate legal and constitution experts in the CA so that constitution writing process could be expedited. But the parties abused this provision. Those who benefitted from it were the leaders who had suffered shameful defeats in CA election. If we need experts’ suggestion, the new CA can hire such experts. You have been demanding that certain contentious issues, including federalism, be settled now. If such issues are to be settled in advance, why do we need a new CA? Because we did not agree on certain principles beforehand, we wasted four precious years. If we can arrive at a common understanding regarding federal provinces and system of governance now, it will ensure a constitution. After all, we had reached a tentative agreement on the federal set up based on the reports of state restructuring committee and (the last CA’s) state restructuring commission. We can make these reports the basis for further deliberation. Our point is: Let us start from where we were in the last CA, not from the scratch. What can be the meeting point between those supporting HLPC and those opposed to it? We are not making the 13-point charter of concerns our bargaining chip. Nor are we opposed to polls. We only want to draw the government’s attention for the holding of free and fair polls. Let us change track. What will be the election agenda of your party? Out agenda has been set long ago. We are going to the polls with the same issues we raised during the last CA polls and during last CA’s proceedings. How would you rate the chances of alliance with Madhesi forces or with other political actors? We will think of alliances and strategies only after election date has been fixed and conditions for fair polls have been created. But you can be sure that there is zero possibility of alliance with Bijaya Kumar Gachchadhar’s United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF). Regarding FDF, our forum, it comprises Adibasi, Janajati and Madheis parties, so it is already an alliance of a sort. Of course, there will be coordination with parties that have been raising the issue of exclusion among Madheshis, Janajatis and Dalits. But such coordination and alliance will materialize on the basis of whether the parties are committed to these agenda, not only along ideological lines. For example, ideologically, we are closer to Gachchadhar and Maoist chairman Prachanda, but they are not practically committed to our agenda. We don’t doubt NC and UML’s commitment to democratic norms but we have major reservations with them regarding their positions on identity and inclusion. What is your view regarding the number of provinces in Tarai? We will stick to two provinces on the basis of identity and capability, which had been endorsed in the reports of State Restructuring Committee and State Restructuring Commission of the last CA. Don’t you believe you have let the Madhesi people down? You could not even implement the four point agreement on the back of which you joined Baburam Bhattarai government. You are right. But because we could not implement the four point agreement and because I had strong reservation on issue of mass recruitment of Madhesi youths in Nepal Army with other Madhesi colleagues, I quit the government and formed this party. The issue of recruitment is not only related to inclusion, it has to do with the sovereign right of the Madhesi youths, nationality, ownership and identity. I have been fighting for this. Sadly, Madhesi colleagues in the government failed to understand me. I believe Madhesi people have already evaluated who was committed to the four-point deal and who was not. You raised the issue of sovereignty and nationality but Madhesi leaders are accused of being silent spectators to recurrent border encroachment and SSB high-handedness in border regions. You have to understand that in no bilateral agreements and dialogues between India and Nepal have the state ever involved Madhesi leaders. Besides, the voices of the people living in border regions have never been taken into account in any bilateral talk. There are these problems but I also assure you that we will raise these issues if and when we get into bilateral talks. How do you evaluate the electoral prospects of Madhesi parties in the Tarai? Most Madhesi parties do not have long history. They have broken away from other parties. So they have structural and organizational problems. And because they had never been given opportunities before, some leaders abused state power for personal gains. In this way, they have failed to live up to people’s expectations. There is frustration, rage and disappointment with Madhesi parties among common people. But despite all this, they have not yet looked for alternatives. If we are determined to correct past mistakes, engage in serious soul-searching and realign with likeminded forces, people will surely give us a second chance. There is no chance for UML, NC and UCPN (Maoist) in Madhesh. There is greater resentment against them than against Madhesi parties. The strength of Madhesi parties will more or less remain the same, although some Madheshi leaders are sure to bite the dust. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=53648 Sanjib Subba is the CEO of Nepal Banking Training Institute (NBTI), a banking academy established jointly by Nepal Rastra Bank, the Nepal Bankers´ Association and the Asian Development Bank. Subba, an MBA degree holder, has previously worked for Grindlays Bank (now Standard Chartered Bank Nepal). He also served as executive director of Webster University in Thailand for over a decade. In an interview with Rupak D Sharma of Republica he talked about shortage of human resources in the banking sector, operational risks short-supply of qualified employees are creating and the need to increase investment on employee training. Excerpts: [break] It is said there is short supply of experienced human resources in the banking sector. What is your view? Nepali banking sector´s growth has taken place in a haphazard and unorganized manner. The proliferation of banks and financial institutions (number of which has crossed 200) was largely the result of strategic blunder made by the state. If the regulator had been more cautious in extending operating licenses to banks and financial institutions (BFIs), we probably would not have faced shortage of human capital. As of now, employees in the top management level have 15 to 20 years of sound banking experience. But there is dearth of knowledge and skills in mid- and low-level staff. So why aren´t BFIs investing in their employees? Much of the explanation for this problem stems from the culture at the top management level, which hesitates to convince board of directors about investment in employees. At the same time, the board of directors is dominated by promoters, who are more concerned about profit, return on investment and dividends. Because of excessive pressure on money making, cost cutting measures are sought. In this process, training and human resource development are forgotten and institutions learn to live with low skilled staff. Many think a bank can be run solely by a branded or competent CEO, which, in fact, is not true. So people at the top-most level lack awareness about the importance of human capital. Do you mean to say BFIs need to spend more on training? Yes. Growth in the banking sector has taken place only in terms of quantity, not in terms of quality. This is because BFIs consider investment made on human resources as expenses and not as value addition. If BFIs want to generate healthy balance sheets, promote productivity and ensure sustainable profitability, they must invest in their employees. They must realize that in a highly competitive environment, focusing solely on sales and profit may erode their chances of remaining competitive. PHOTO: KESHAB THOKER So how much should BFIs spend on training and human resource development? BFIs should invest at least seven percent to eight percent of their gross staff expenditure on training and human resource development. Currently, even established commercial banks are not allocating one percent of their total staff cost on training. How many BFIs are currently making relatively higher investment in human capacity development? Out of 32 commercial banks, not more than five or six are investing in human capacity development proactively. In development banks and finance companies, it is negligible. You mean to say most of the BFIs here are treating their employees as staff and not as human capital? Exactly. The word capital is associated with investment and once you invest this capital you start getting good returns. Is that why operational risks (risks generated by people, systems and processes) are going up in BFIs? Internal compliance should also be made robust to contain operational risks like debit card and check fraud cases that recently took place in Nepal. These cases generally erupt because of involvement of trained senior staff and weak internal audit processes. But again, everything boils down to training. If these BFIs had made training and human resource development integral part of their operation, their staff would have been aware about these issues and a culture of check and balance would have been inculcated. This could have minimized operational risks. So the banking industry has to wake up soon and do some soul-searching. If not, one or two smart people will always be able to manipulate the entire system. What about the board of directors, as many of them lack banking knowledge? Yes, we have to accept the fact that board directors in Nepal do not have sound knowledge of banking, as more than 90 percent of them come from non-banking background. But this should not be used as an excuse to remain non-functional. Banking, in fact, is a technical subject, so lack of understanding, awareness and education obviously bars many board directors from formulating sound policies, putting forth critical questions to the management and expressing concerns. But those that have accepted the challenge of sitting in the boardroom need to be able to set a vision for their institution and continually check whether the policies formulated by them are being implemented. However, this does not mean board directors should get involved in day to day operation of BFIs. That demarcation has to be set very clearly. Another problem faced by the banking industry is of poaching. Many junior level staff members, who change their workplaces, get promotions that they had never thought of. Isn´t that posing risk to BFIs as well? Yes, that is also a challenge. In many cases, BFIs are expanding network without assessing the quality of human resources they have. We have come across cases where staff with two-year experience have been promoted to the post of branch manager. Can a person with such little banking experience undertake a broad range of tasks? Will that person be able represents the entire organization in a particular area? At the same time, many branch offices are run by two to three staff members. With such a low number of employees how can the process of check and balance be pursued? These are some tough questions that BFIs need to answer. So what kind of training programs do you recommend for various levels of staff? Every organization should first set their business goals for the year and assess the quality of skills inherent in the company. If the set of available skills is not enough to meet the target, the organization should identify trainings that are required to achieve the goal. At present BFIs need to focus on enhancing both hard and soft skills. Hard skills refer to credit management, risk analysis, customer service and asset-liability management, among others. To complement these hard skills, BFI staff members also need soft skills like pleasant behavior, positive attitude, personality, leadership quality and proactive approach. So a combination of both hard and soft skills is required. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=53498 Rajan Singh Bhandari is the CEO of Citizens Bank International. He is also the president of the Nepal Bankers´ Association, an umbrella body of commercial banks. In an interview with Rupak D Sharma of Republica he talked about performance of his bank, implementation of base rate and donation drive launched by political parties. Excerpts: Your bank has just turned seven. How does it feel? Over the years we have crossed many hurdles, which, in fact, have made us more mature. Could you please be a little more specific? Over the years we faced problems of both liquidity crisis and excess liquidity. We also had to raise paid-up capital to Rs 2 billion within this timeframe. We also faced problems that emanated from tight capital adequacy situation, which forced us to restrict lending. All these incidents took place when the country´s economy was growing at a relatively slower pace and investment climate was not suitable for doing business. Now we have a credit portfolio of around Rs 18 billion and have mobilized deposits of around Rs 21.5 billion. You have just published third quarter results. Profit has gone up. But amount allocated for possible loan loss has also gone up. Increased loan loss provisioning does not affect the bank´s financial health as long as debts are recovered in time. This allotted amount, in fact, will help us to raise our revenue in future.  Photo: Keshab Thoker What about base rate? It has also gone up. At present no bank is facing liquidity related problem. Ctitizens Bank, for instance, has maintained liquidity ratio of 27 percent. But at the same time credit to core capital cum deposit (CCD) ratio is at 77 percent (as against central bank´s ceiling of 80 percent). The situation is same at many banks, which means they are under pressure to maintain CCD ratio despite having cash to extend loans. To maintain CCD ratio at 80 percent, banks either have to raise deposits or restrict lending. Banks are currently focusing on increasing deposits, which has raised their cost of fund. This, in turn, has raised base rate (based on which lending rates are fixed). How realistic are base rates published by banks? The liquidity situation impacts cost of fund. Whenever liquidity is at comfortable level, banks reduce deposit rates and when there is liquidity crunch they raise deposit rates. This directly impacts lending rates and ultimately base rates, albeit it is intention of every bank to maximize efficiency and keep cost of fund at a low level. But are banks really fixing lending rates based on base rates? If you do not move according to the market trend, you cannot retain good clients. If your lending rates are higher than that of you contemporaries, then you won´t be able to attract low-risk customers. Banks that do not understand this basic principle will have to live with high-risk customers. Then why is the central bank indirectly complaining about high lending rates, in spite of low deposit rates? You must have noticed that some banks have fixed deposit rates at as low as two percent while others have fixed this rate at as high as eight percent. If a depositor chooses a bank that is offering two-percent interest on cash park -- despite being aware about presence of banks that are offering higher rates -- then we have to respect the customer´s decision. But those banks offering low deposit rates are also offering loans at cheaper prices, which ultimately benefits borrowers. So I don´t think it is appropriate to complain about high lending or low deposit rates as the market determines everything and those that are not competitive will eventually be pushed out of the industry. Lately, banks have also witnessed donation drives launched by political parties. What is your take on this issue? The Nepal Bankers´ Association is very clear on this issue: banks cannot extend donation to political parties. This is because we are using public´s money. Yes, we extend financial support to sporting or mountaineering events and sectors like health and education, but these assistances are linked to business they generate for us. For example, support to health sector depends on contribution made by the sector to our business. This is the same with other sectors. But political parties are not willing to buy this logic. They only see us making profit and demand for money from us. In this regard, Nepal Rastra Bank should come up with a clear policy on whether banks and financial institutions can donate funds to political parties. If the response is affirmative then it should also fix a ceiling on donations and make such contributions tax-free. At the same time we have also been asking the government to devise a mechanism that can channel a portion of huge amount of taxes that we pay to national-level political parties planning to hold conventions or participate in election. How have they responded? Discussions are still going on. What we want is end to the practice of raising funds using threat and violence. So policies should be made to address these problems, as they erupt whenever political parties are short of cash. How has the banking sector viewed latest political developments and installment of a new government? This government has been formed to create a favorable environment to hold free and fair election and maintain security. Till the time of the election, the government should also focus on promoting good governance. This means public service delivery system should be effective, corruption level should go down and red tape at different government bodies should be cut down. So an example has to be to set by the time the incumbent government hands over the power to an elected government. Lastly, is Citizens Bank launching any new product? We are planning to introduce a scheme called ´One Zone, One Product´ under which specialized banking service would be offered to one sector in every zone. The highlight of this scheme is easy lending facility although lending rates may differ based on risk. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=53419 UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal held a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Thursday. Dahal had been invited for a week-long visit to China by the Chinese Communist Party. Purna Basnet of Republica had an exclusive talk with Dahal shortly after the meeting with President Xi. Excerpts: [break] Which topic has gotten primacy during your China visit? My visit to China was focused on garnering Chinese support for Nepal´s economic prosperity and stability. I feel that the visit has been fruitful and successful. I was given the opportunity to talk to village and municipal committee secretaries and the provincial secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in Sichuwan. This series ended in Beijing with my meeting with the chief of the party´s International Department and the vice-president and the president of China. I feel that the visit has been more successful than I had expected at the beginning. I feel that this meeting [with Xi] will take Nepal-China relations to a new height. What were the issues you discussed with the Chinese president? At the outset of our meeting, the Chinese president congratulated me on our party successfully holding its seventh national convention and electing me as chairman. He then clearly expressed his wish that Nepal would succeed in completing its peace process and constitution-drafting, and move towards rapid economic progress. I thanked him for inviting me as the first South Asian leader to the Great Hall of the People [since he became president]. I told him that this was a matter of great pride and prestige for Nepal. I then apprised him briefly about the current political situation in Nepal. We are still passing through a political transition. We have achieved success in completing one of the key elements of the peace process after the successful conclusion of army integration. But we could not achieve success in drafting a new statute and are planning to go for fresh elections. I told him that as a neighbor Nepal expects China´s cooperation for making the election a success. I then briefed him about the policy adopted by our party´s recent general convention. Given the way China has achieved economic prosperity, I told him that our party has also decided to focus on the development of production capacity. I then focused all my presentation on the agenda of economic development. What was the agenda discussed in terms of economic development? Our party and the Nepal government have been supporting a one-China policy. But our support alone will not have any effect. Until Nepal becomes economically prosperous, it cannot extend support that is effective. This is what I put across with emphasis during my meeting with President Xi. I personally feel that he has noted my point with interest. What were the areas you discussed concerning investment in Nepal? I have put forth two most important areas for economic prosperity. Hydroelectricity is one of the important sectors for bring economic prosperity in Nepal within a short span of time. We now have to think in terms of hydropower plants that generate 10,000 Megawatt. China´s Three Gorges company is constructing the West Seti project, and that is a good thing. We now have to think about projects even bigger than that. And the second area in which we have huge potential is tourism. There two are the sectors which can help bring about prosperity in Nepal. We first need infrastructure development for tourism. Hence, I have requested Chinese assistance for building a North-South link road and a mid-hills highway at the earliest. Likewise, another project that can bring huge economic change in the long term is a Lhasa-Lumbini railway. That railway link will benefit India, Nepal and China alike. I have proposed extending the Chinese railway network, which has reached the Nepal border, to Lumbini. Once Lumbini is connected with the rail network, it can bring about a qualitatively growth in tourism and increase commerce and trade in India as well. This will give Nepal an opportunity to serve as a bridge between China and India or South Asia. Also, it will help address the security concerns of China. What was the response of the Chinese president? The Chinese president said that what I said was absolutely right. He has assured us that the Chinese government and Communist Party will pay due heed to how much we can do immediately and how much can be done later. Since the president has assured me that China will extend all manner of support we should take it that China is going to support Nepal with the big projects. Was there any separate talk on Lumbini? The Nepal government has been taking special initiative to develop Lumbini as a center for Buddhists across the world and all peace lovers. I am heading a government committee formed for the purpose. This is why I have asked China to extend special assistance for the development of Lumbini. In this context, I said Nepal wishes that China, India and Nepal work jointly for the development of Chisapani hydropower and Lumbini. It will be easier to implement such projects jointly.   What was the response of China to that? China had a positive response. China is in favor of working first on bilateral projects that Nepal and China can work together on. They have said that we can discuss later what projects can be implemented jointly by China, Nepal and India. You had proposed in Shanghai some two and half years ago trilateral cooperation for the development of Nepal. Are India and China ready for that? After talking about trilateral strategic cooperation in Shanghai, I put forth the same idea upon returning to Nepal. It appeared then as a something purely theoretical and strategic. Many were excited over the prospect of trilateral cooperation between China, Nepal and India in overall trade exchange. Some people even deemed it a pure fantasy. But now it is taking pragmatic shape. I now find that China, Nepal and India have agreed in principle to jointly implement big projects in Nepal. Initially, there could be implementation of a few such projects. But once it starts yielding positive results, this could pave way for implementing several other big projects under the same model. Do you think India will be ready to invest together with China in Lumbini and the Chisapani hydro project? I cannot say anything precisely now. China has also not yet responsed that it is ready do that. Let this point be clear. I have a impression that China will think positively about it. The level of people in India I have been talking to so far say there won´t be any problem in principle. This will be clear once I talk to the Indian leadership. I plan to visit India shortly after my return home. But what is an encouraging aspect in this is that no one will have objections now to implementing big projects in Nepal. Has China given any assurance of support for polls? The Chinese president repeated three times that China wishes to see Nepal´s peace process and constitution-drafting concluded at the earliest. Chinese leaders have assured of support for concluding these processes. I could feel deep interest on the part of China to see Nepal move towards the path of economic prosperity after successful conclusion of the peace process and constitution-drafting. China has been reminding Nepal that ethnicity-based federalism would invite conflict? Did the Chinese leaders say anything specific about this? There was no discussion on the issue during my meeting with the president and the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party. But in my meetings with Chinese ministers I had a detailed discussion on the issue. They are not at all against federalism in Nepal. The only concern they have is whether federalism would create further problems in Nepal. They have told me that Nepal needs to have further discussions on the type of federalism, the relations between state and central governments and whether these federal states will have the right to secede. What I felt after the discussions is that it is wrong to say China is against federalism in Nepal. The only concern China has is whether federalism would lead Nepal towards disintegration and that it should keep Nepal united and help move on the path of development. Has China sought any assistance on the Tibet issue? The main issue in China associated with Nepal is Tibet. We share a 1,400 km border with Tibet. This is a big thing. In that sense, it is natural on the part of China to have in interest in developing special relations with Nepal. During my conversation with the ministers, I found that they were worried whether there were any activities taking place in Nepal against China. They want Nepal to effectively curb such activities. It will be in the interest of both Nepal and China to properly manage the issue of Tibet. Only a prosperous Nepal can address China´s security concerns effectively; a poor Nepal cannot do that. I raised this issue with President Xi. I feel that the Chinese leadership has also understood the seriousness of this. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=53305 Three-time prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has been a central figure in Nepali Congress and broader national politics since the advent of democracy in 1990. He has had his share of controversies, most notably over the formation of breakaway Nepali Congress (Democratic) under him in 2002, following a dispute with former Party President Girija Prasad Koirala over the extension of the state of emergency. His differences with current NC President Sushil Koirala, routinely played out among the party’s sister wings, keep him in the headlines. As Congress gears up for election, what is NC’s stand on federalism? What steps will the party take to bring the agitating parties on board? What will be NC’s poll agenda? Are there any prospects of alliance with other parties? Mahabir Paudyal and Koshraj Koirala caught up with the senior NC leader in the aftermath of the much-hyped Mahasamiti Meeting of Nepali Congress to discuss these issues. [break] Why could not the Mahasamiti meet take any concrete decision on issue of federalism? Let there be no doubt. NC is committed to federalism and institutionalizing republic. As for the nature and number of federal provinces, we will make our stand clear in our election manifesto. We have also formed a committee to deliberate the issue. Even if we take a decision now, it won’t be final. The number and nature of federal provinces will, ultimately, be determined by the nature of the composition of new CA. Other parties like UCPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML seem to be clear on the issue. On the other hand, your 7-13 province models are rather vague. Of course people will want to know how many provinces NC endorses and on what basis. We will make public our final verdict on federalism before the polls. We are rigorously discussing the issue within the party. Isn’t that a roundabout way of admitting that NC is plagued by indecisiveness? Not really. If you remember, we had agreed on a 11-province model on May 15 last year. We decided that Kailali and Kanchanpur would remain part of Seti-Mahakali province and in case of objection from the people we had decided to settle the issue through a referendum. We had also decided that Jhapa, Morang and Sunasri would form a different province and there would be two provinces in Tarai. Everyone had agreed to this proposal—UML, UCPN (Maoist), everyone. The Madheshi leaders had also agreed; they had only declined to sign the agreement. But in the next few days, everything changed. I still believe the CA is the final body to decide on federalism issue. As for the name of the provinces, I believe the federal legislatures of the respective provinces should settle them. Leadership in Kathmandu cannot force them to adopt certain names. PHOTO: CHANDRA SHEKHAR KARKI The Congress had earlier agreed on a directly elected ceremonial president and an executive head elected by parliament. But consensus during the Mahasamiti meeting seemed to emerge on the parliamentary system. Why did you backtrack? Back then that—a directly elected ceremonial president and a parliament-elected executive head—was a document of compromise. NC is for parliamentary system in which the President is the titular head and power is exercised by the prime minister. This is our official stand. Janajati groups have strongly objected to definition of “indigenous groups” in Mahasamiti’s political paper. Perhaps it was a mistake. There are several definitions of adibasi people. I am not sure whether the point of time at which certain groups inhabit certain locations has anything to do with determining their adibasi status. The issue of whom to call indigenous nationality, tribal nationality and ethnicity is open to deliberation. That said, we should also address the concerns of those who have opposed our definition. Some Mahasamiti members had also objected to NC’s endorsement of secularism. NC has already endorsed secularism. There is no going back. The fundamental principle of secularism is that a state cannot protect one religion; every religion is equal for the state. Of course, everyone has a right to follow the religion of his choice. But a state has no religion of its own. NC is committed to this fundamental principle of secularism. There does not seem to be strong unity in the party yet, a concern which was raised time and again during the Mahasamiti meeting. Yes, there are problems from the district level to central level. There are several aspects to it. First, the present-day Nepali Congress is comprised of two parties (NC and NC-D). Second, any party that practices internal election at all levels, from the village to central level, will have these problems, which is natural. Naturally, in an election, some achieve victory while others do not. But all belong to the same party. My point is the victors need to take into consideration the voices of the other side and those who do not get victory need to coordinate with the winners at all levels. We should not see party members as winners or losers. They are all NC members. We should maintain a balance between two factions; this is the key to forging strong unity within the party. Third, intra-party election in Nepal is a relatively new phenomenon. Internal democracy has not yet been institutionalized in any party. Yet, if we fail in this regard, it could do the party great harm in the election. President Sushil Koirala has recently taken up the leadership of High Level Political Committee. Will he be able to bring the agitating parties on board? We must persuade the agitating parties, especially Mohan Baidya and Upendra Yadav, to join the election bandwagon. But first we need to create a favorable environment for them to come on board. I believe the party president will be able to do so. But they are opposed to whole process of formation of CJ-led government and HLPC. I understand that they have strong reservations. But when we sit for dialogue, I believe we can still reach a meeting point. Do you believe we can have CA polls by December? Why can’t there be an election? The country is relatively at peace. There are no big problems like widespread violence during the Maoist insurgency. Even the places reeling under insurgency are successfully holding elections. Take Kashmir, Northeast India and Sri Lanka, which are all conducting elections. Even when Rajib Gandhi was assassinated in 1991, election was not deferred in India. I see no obstacles to holding polls in Nepal. Some parties have raised concerns over the allocation of fewer seats under PR component in the proposed CA polls in comparison to the last polls. How do you see this debate? When we adopted the 601-member model in the last CA, there had been widespread criticism that a small country like ours did not require such a huge assembly. There had been fierce criticism in the press and other media. So the number has been brought down a little this time. I hope they will understand this reality. There is no reason why people should object to a smaller CA. What will be the central electoral plank for Nepali Congress? Democracy. We will try to convince people that democracy is still in danger; that it has not been fully institutionalized; that NC is the right party to do so. Is there any prospect of forging electoral alliance with other parties? It’s a universal norm not to forge election alliance with main rivals. Thus there will be no alliance with the likes of UCPN (Maoist), CPN-UML and Madhesi parties. Yes, there could be some talmel (a level of coordination) among likeminded forces, but I see little possibility of an alliance. There is a voice in UML that it should forge an alliance with democratic forces like NC. Like I said, there could be some sort of talmel. We are yet to discuss this issue within the party. But I don’t believe there will be a formal alliance. How do you evaluate NC’s prospect in new CA polls? And how hopeful are you that the new CA will be able to promulgate the national charter? The situation now is largely fear and intimidation-free. I am sure NC will do much better this time. As for the prospect of a constitution, it all depends on the composition of the new CA. If NC gets most seats, we will surely have a democratic constitution in the next few years. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=52871 Ending weeks of speculation, former CPN-UML politburo member Ram Chandra Jha has now officially joined UCPN (Maoist). Many see this as a sign of a broader realignment ahead of the impending CA polls. Could more Madheshi leaders from UML (or NC) follow suit? How are electoral calculations playing out in the Tarai? What are the possibilities of broader election alliances? Thira L Bhusal and Biswas Baral sat down with the veteran Madheshi leader. [break] First of all why did you leave CPN-UML, a party you have been associated for such a long time? It’s a long story. But primarily, it was over differences on the issue of federalism. I hold CPN-UML responsible for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. On May 27, the Speaker (Subas Chandra Nembang) who was from CPN-UML either did not want to or was not allowed to start CA procedures, which led to the assembly’s dissolution without a constitution. The party must take responsibility for this grave mistake. When I expressed this view in the UML politburo meeting, those present found it hard to argue against my case. PHOTO: KESHAB THOKER But the party leadership always tried to divert attention away from the genuine issues I raised, including those on federalism. In recent times, the party establishment hadn’t given me any important responsibly, even as my voice was being consistently sidelined. It was then that I decided to part ways after consulting with my friends and well-wishers. Many believe you joined UCPN (Maoist) as you saw no electoral prospects with UML. Is that the case? I decided to join the Maoists after their seventh general convention in Hetauda, where I witnessed the Maoist party’s evolution into a democratic force. They have formally abandoned violence and vowed to stand by basic democratic norms. After the convention, I started to feel that the gaps between UCPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML had narrowed down significantly. UML’s philosophy of ‘people’s multiparty democracy’ (janatako bahudaliya janabad) is very close to the current working philosophy of UCPN (Maoist). Besides, as someone who has dedicated his whole life to the communist movement, I could not join a non-communist party. This was also a factor. As someone who was closely involved in shaping the federalism debate inside UML, what is your view on the issue as pertains to Madhesh? I have been saying all along that provinces in Madhesh should be decided on the basis of language. On that basis, I had proposed Tharuwan, Bhojpura, Awadh, Mithila and Birat/Kochila states. But I had also said during the federalism debate inside the party that we should not be rigid. If two or more language groups are ready to voluntarily accommodate themselves in the same state, we should be flexible on that. Principally, UML had accepted my proposal to provinces on the basis of language. But then UML leadership created a new controversy by agreeing to the formation of a single mass-based sister Madhesi organization. The Lontantrik Madhesi Sangathan had the ambit over the entire Tarai belt. This proposal was a roundabout way of endorsing the One-Madhesh-One-Pradesh model. This gave rise to great contradictions within the party. The Sangathan endorsed the One Madhesh agenda and started propagating the lie that Ram Chandra Jha was against Madhes. The party leadership didn’t utter a word in my defense. During the ceremony marking your formal entry into the Maoist party, Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal spoke of a ‘new trend’ in Madhesi politics. What was he hinting at? The differences over which I quit CPN-UML are the reflections of the sentiments of all those who have been discriminated against and marginalized within the party. If you look at Middle Tarai (Bhojpura, Mithila, etc), the Maoists did not perform so well there during the last CA polls. The results this time will be the exact opposite. In the coming days, the number of Madhesis wanting to join the Maoist party would be so large that Chairman Prachanda or vice-chairman Bhattarai would be hard pressed to find time to welcome them all. Mark my word: In the future there will be 30,000-strong rallies where former UML cadres will announce their collective allegiance to the Maoists. There were thousands who wanted to leave the party with me. Let us see how UML leadership will stem this tide. UML chief Jhalanath Khanal has been saying that taking out a cup of water from an ocean would make no difference. He forgets that Agastha rishi slurped down an entire ocean in one gulp. Note this down: Of the 800,000 votes CPN-UML got in Madhesh in last CA polls, they will lose at least half. How do you assess the likelihood of Maoist alliance with Madhesi parties in upcoming polls? I have many disagreements with the Madhes-based parties. Take the issue of language. They try to impose the Hindi language on entire Madhesh. I am not opposed to Hindi language per se. But around a billion people speak Hindi in India alone. It really does not matter whether people like me stand up for it. But if we don’t promote our mother tongues like Maithali, they will be endangered. There might be alliance on the larger issue of identity-based federalism. Alliances on nitty-gritty, like division of provinces, will be harder. The question is: How do we proceed by accommodating the demands of other communities like Bahuns, Chhetries, dalits and janajatis? Their aspirations will have to be respected. Federalism is synonymous with compromise. Thus there can be no east-to-west federalism with a single state spanning the entire country. How would you evaluate overall Madhesi politics ahead of CA polls? Madhesi politics so far has been power-oriented. When in power, leaders from Madhesi parties put all the important Madhesi issues on the backburner, but soon as they are out of government, they hit the streets vowing to uphold genuine Madhesi concerns. They want self-rule, but never talk about good governance. They discuss federal state structure, but do not bother about local level governance. Like I said, I am not convinced by the aggressive style of politics of the so-called Madhesi parties. Their politics of hatred have in the past created great divides between communities. The pain of all the people who have been discriminated against, be they Madhesis, dalits, janajatis or Pahadis, is the same. Second, I believe the issue of federalism should be decided in a way that does not compromise with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=52559 Inspector General of Police Kuber Singh Rana has earned the reputation of an honest and competent officer who is uncompromising in enforcing the rule of law. Yet the spate of crimes in the country seems to have gone up since he became the IGP last September. What is the police department doing to halt this trend? What are its challenges? And crucially, how is it planning out security arrangements for free and fair CA polls? Mahabir Paudyal and Kamal Pariyar talked to the chief of Nepal Police to find out. How would you evaluate your seven months as IGP? There are a number of challenges, both internal and external. There is the prime challenge of maintaining law and order in the country, while management within the police force is also a matter of concern. Because we are in the middle of a prolonged transition, challenges have increased. With a technocratic government in place, we feel security challenges for us have multiplied. How is your now famous action plan announced at the start of your tenure working out? I had introduced a 14-point action plan. Most of the points have been implemented and others are in the process of implementation. Programs like police behavior modification and hasilo muhar sahitko prahari (police with smiling faces) have been great success. I have had good feedback from the media and people in general. Other programs are also doing well. We have installed citizen’s help desks across the country. We are launching periodic security projects and introducing special security arrangements during festivals. Likewise, we started Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) for specialized criminal investigation. We have revised and rewritten police regulation, drafted a three-year strategic action plan, three-year career development plan, VIP security law, regulations to monitor private security arrangement and policies regarding weapon management, among many others. BHASHWOR OJHA Have your plans brought about any tangible change? Yes. Occurrences of serious crimes like murder, attempted murder, abduction, illegal arms possession, theft and armed robbery have gone down significantly. Likewise, organized crimes and frequency of obstructions and disruptive activities have also come down. I can say the security situation of the country has stabilized, if not greatly improved. I owe a great deal to the cooperation and collective effort of my officials and staffs. It is said that politicians routinely interfere in police work. Is it true? I have not had a bad experience in this regard. Political leadership has largely been cooperative. Yes, political leadership inquires about our actions. I wouldn’t call that intervention. But surely there are exceptions. For instance former home minister Bijay Kumar Gachchadhar’s alleged order to halt investigation into money laundering cases got a lot of press. Curiously, the investigation restarted as soon as a new home minister came to office. Let me be clear on this. The cases you are talking about were under investigation when I took charge. Now the files have been forwarded because we have finished investigations. So it has nothing to do with the current or former home minister. There was no pressure from the former home minister. What is the experience of working under a bureaucrat-turned Home Minister? As someone who has worked as the chief bureaucrat of the country, I believe [Home Minister Madhav] Ghimire is familiar with the difficulties of the police organization and the grievances of the police. He is familiar with our strengths as well as weaknesses. So I consider it an advantage to have someone with complete knowledge about our department as home minister. The entire security apparatus is comfortable with him. Let us turn to upcoming polls. There have been cases of disruptions of voter roll update in various parts in the country. What have the police done? We understand that the current government is an election government. We are committed to maintaining law and order situation across the country to create conducive atmosphere for polls. The Home Ministry has already issued necessary directives and we are working according those directives. We are doing homework for security management and formulating plans and policies based on our experience in the last CA polls. We are collecting statistics of the last polls and studying them. As for cases of obstruction by certain political groups, although there were a few such cases initially, by and large, we have managed to control them. The sporadic cases of disruption occurred due to lack of coordination between election commission officials and police administration at the local level. But after we intervened from the center these cases have been controlled. Now the police are providing complete security to election commission offices and the concerned officials out on the field. Any such disruptive activity will be deemed a criminal act and the people or groups involved in them will be treated as per the existing laws. There are reports that Nepal Police favors polls in two phases. Is that the case? We have not yet discussed whether election should be held on a single day or in two phases, primarily because an election date has not been fixed and also because Election Commission has not issued us any order. Yet we have been doing internal homework and making necessary plans for all possible options. We will make our security arrangement public after the EC gives us a clear mandate and announces election date. Is the existing security force adequate for election security? From the experience of the last CA election, I can tell you the existing human resource in Nepal Police won’t be enough. We had recruited 70, 000 additional myadi prahari (temporary police personnel) for the CA polls in 2008. Many things have changed in the last five years. So we may need more than 70,000 additional forces. It depends on the number of election constituencies, polling stations and sub-stations. Any special preparations for the upcoming polls? We have been collecting information from village and regional level offices to assess security sensibilities of all polling booths and constituencies as per the agreements in 2008. Based on this we are also analyzing possible security situations, logistic support and human resources needed. We have already submitted a tentative proposal to Home Ministry. The ministry has also decided to create a special election security cell comprising of different security bodies. New challenges have emerged since last CA polls. Many political parties and ethnic groups have threatened to disrupt election. Armed groups have increased their presence in the Tarai. How do you assess the overall challenge? We think this election is going to be much tougher than the last one. There can be greater security threats for election candidates. We will formulate and execute security plans by keeping all such possibilities in mind. Rest assured, the police will do all it can to manage security for the polls. Lastly, Nepal Police seems to be undergoing lot of changes. As things stand, what are its biggest challenges? Perhaps the biggest challenge is lack of professional development. Let me remind you we had to fight with a political outfit as a coercive force during the ten-year-long insurgency. In that time we could do virtually nothing to train staff for their professional development. The core issue of crime control was pushed to the backburner and police reforms were shelved. We have been trying to compensate for those lapses, but much needs to be done. We believe we will need 10 more years to make our force professionally capable. Besides, criminals have become more advanced and organized than before. Currently, we lack resources to dismantle their nexus. We are short of investigative capabilities, scientific and electronic equipments. We do not even have proper identification system. Let me tell you there is no mechanism and database to verify whether I am Kuber Singh Rana. Thus we have not been able to expedite investigations in the crime-prone zones. These factors have made our criminal investigation questionable at times. This could affect security management in the upcoming polls too. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=52382 Separate meetings of the High Level Political Committee and the government have decided to hold talks with the dissident political parties and persuade them to participate in the coming elections. Mohan Baidya-led CPN-Maoist is in the forefront of those disrupting the ongoing voter registration drive launched by the Election Commission. Republica"s Kiran Pun talked with CPN-Maoist Chairman Mohan Baidya on issues surrounding the coming elections. Have you received any formal proposal for talks? -No. We just heard about it via the media. What would be the response of your party and your alliance if you received a proposal? -First of all, we will demand the scrapping of the March 14 agreement of the parties [UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Unified Democratic Madhesi Front]. Secondly, a meeting should be called of all the parties to select a government from among the political parties. Will these two conditions be put forward at the talks table or as a pre-condition for talks? -These are our pre-conditions for talks. These conditions should be addressed first. Then only we will consult our comrades [33 parties in the alliance] to set out our future moves. For this, the decision which is unconstitutional and un-political should be scrapped. Suppose your preconditions are fulfilled, what would be your agenda for talks? -After cancellation of the decision, we can talk about how to hold the CA elections. The four parties have done various things including minimization of the proportional representation seats. After holding talks among the parties we will move ahead through consensus. They have already formed the Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi-led government. Will not demanding dissolution of the government before sitting at the talks table only invite confrontation? -It is not our choice. They headed that way intentionally. When the talks were underway, we [from our party] urged the president to call an all-party meeting to find a solution. But he did not do so. We also put forward such an agenda at the all-party meeting. But they did not respond. They wanted to bypass us. It is our compulsion to choose tit for tat. We did not want confrontation. First, I don"t think the CA elections will be held. Secondly, if the election is held, the right of the common people will not be addressed. In this situation, the constitution is not going to be in the hands of the people and of nationalists. The situation is not in our hands. So, we have launched a protest program. So, your party is disturbing the voter list updating process. -Yes, we have directed our people to obstruct the process. It is a symbolic obstruction. We did it so that they would heed our voice. So, if they call you for talks, will you stop such activities? -We will not sit at the table without our concerns being addressed. We will decide after holding a meeting with our alliance partners. I heard that the UCPN (Maoist), NC, UML and the Madhes-based parties also want to hold talks with us. What is their legal and constitutional authority and competence for holding such a meeting? Only the president and the chief of the election government have such authority. It is not that we don"t want talks with the parties. We will go for talks but not if there is no meaning to it. You mentioned that the high-level political committee has no authority to hold a meeting. Who should call the meeting then? -Talks should be for a solution. The concern is whether or not the issues are being addressed. That means, in the existing situation, there is no meaning to talks. -If the president calls you for talks, will you accept, or what would be your reaction? In this present situation, we have decided to boycott them -- the president and the government. We would not sit at the table without some indication the four parties" agreement will be scrapped. The major parties went aheaded bypassing your party. Now they are calling for talks. Is there any seriousness in it or is it just a formality? -I think they are trying to hold talks just for the endorsement of their decision. If they wanted to be serious, they would have done so in the past. Earlier, we had said time and again, mainly to the NC and UML, that if they moved ahead leaving us out, they would fail. They left out a major revolutionary section of the party. How can they move while bypassing us? And the CA elections? It should be understood that we have not said we will participate in the election or boycott it. We have said that the election cannot be held in this way. Without addressing the genuine concerns, it cannot be held. The party central committee meeting will also be called soon. We will take a formal decision about the election. And your announced protest programs? -They would be continued. After their completion, we will launch more protests after reviewing the political situation. In your observation, is the country heading the wrong way. Nepali politics has gone into the hands of foreigners. That is clear. Indian expansionists and other countries lay out the master plan. Another thing, the national sovereignty of Nepal is in serious crisis. The very existence of the country is in crisis, let alone the strengthening of democracy. Sooner or later the country is going to become another Sikkim. We nationalists, leftists and all the parties should be united to save the country. Also, we should move against the four-party syndicate and their partyless system. If we success in this course, we will save our country and our national sovereignty. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=52212 Teletalk -- the authorized dealer of Colors mobile in Nepal -- is launching new Android phone and three tablets in the Nepali market on Thursday. The phone uses MT6589 quad core processor and the tablet uses dual core technology developed by MediaTek. Kriti Bhuju of Republica talked with Finbarr Moynihan, general manager -- business development of MediaTek, who is in Nepal to launch the new devices. Excerpts:[break] Tell us something about MediaTek as it is a new name in the Nepali market? MediaTek is a fabless semiconductor company for wireless communications and digital media solutions. The company provides innovative chip integration system solutions for optical storage, digital home devices such as digital TV, DVD and Blu-Ray products, mobile communication, and wireless home networking and broadband access. The company headquartered in Taiwan recorded turnover of US$ 3.4 billion in 2012. What do you have to offer to the Nepali customers? We do not have direct end products to the customers here. But we have been working with Teletalk for a couple of years. As Colors mobile has been using the mobile communication solutions developed by MediaTek, we offer Colors mobiles and tablets that use our processor to Nepali customers. We basically focus on developing new technologies at affordable price. What are the new products from Colors that you are launching on Thursday? We will be launching a mobile phone -- X factor Bold 2 - that uses MT6589 quadcore processor developed by MediaTek and three new tablets -- Xfactor Tab XT801, XT701 and XT711 -- that use our dual core technology. Which other brands except Colors have used your technology? In Nepal we are working only with Colors. But in other parts of the world different brands like Micromax, Lava, Karbonn, Motorola, LG, Lenovo, ZTE, Huawei, Alcatel and Sharp among others have used our technology in Android based smartphones and feature phones. Currently windows phones are also creating buzz in the market? Do you have chipsets and processors for Windows phone as well? At present our technology is for Android and feature phones only. We have worked with Microsoft earlier but we do not have plans for developing technology for Windows phone as Android is selling like hotcakes globally. The global customers are switching from feature phone to smartphones and we assume that by the end of 2020 everybody will own a smartphone. Do you have technology for 4G? We currently have only 2G and 3G technology. However, we are developing technology for 4G or LTE and we will be using it in smartphones by the end of this year. We will also be introducing data cards and dongles in the near future. The smartphones consumes more power and thus the battery life is very short. Have you worked on making power efficient devices? We have been working to optimize power consumption. We are the first company to launch Cortex A7 processor that is power efficient. We are using the technology for adaptive display management and reducing brightness among others to reduce power consumption in smartphones so that battery life can be extended. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=52159 Bimalendra Nidhi worked as a key interlocutor as Nepali Congress representative in the four-party taskforce which drafted the 11-point deal on March 13 that paved the way for formation of Khil Raj Regmi-led election government. A close confidante of senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, Nidhi has been actively involved in settlement of outstanding disputes with the establishment faction. Mahabir Paudyal and Kosh Raj Koirala discussed upcoming polls, NC’s prospects and inter-party conflict with the veteran leader. [break] NC is believed to be a divided house even as new CA polls loom large. What major issues are yet to be settled? The party had a single voice on the issue of CA polls and Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi-led government. In a way, these two vital national issues have helped unite the party. The level of bitterness we had before has gone down considerably. But there are issues like formation of parliamentary board, appointing joint general secretary, nominating central committee members and forming work performance committee that need to be sorted out. These issues have proven to be rather intractable. How will you solve them now? If President Sushil Koirala and senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba sit down for meaningful dialogue I believe they will be able to address all the problems. Each leader needs to respect the views of the other. Both the leaders seem to have learnt lessons and they seem to be working sincerely to bridge their differences this time around. If the two can see eye to eye, I am sure other leaders will happily follow whatever decisions they come to. Now that we are going to face the polls soon, we will have to settle interparty issues at the earliest. Only then can we devote all our attention on polls. PHOTO: BHASHWOR OJHA The CJ-led government was elected with the purpose of holding CA polls by June. But the June date is looking increasingly unrealistic. Frankly, I don’t think there will be elections in June. This was one of the reasons why the taskforce recommended November/December as the alternative date. Yes, June is our first priority but in case we cannot make it in June, we will have to wait until December (end of Mangshir). If things had gone smoothly after the 11-point pact on March 13, if government formation and appointment of officials in Election Commission had not taken time, perhaps June election could have been possible. Given the slow progress on these fronts, polls could be deferred to December. There is a fear that if this government cannot hold polls in June, its legitimacy and continuation will come under serious question. This is a baseless claim. We have clearly stated in the 11-point pact that the government shall hold polls by December 15 in case it is not possible in June. Let there be no doubt, this government is mandated to hold the polls by December 15 and its relevance will not end until that date. But, yes, if it cannot hold polls even by December it will lose its relevance. CPN-Maoist and other disgruntled forces have started obstructing electoral preparations. How do you see these obstructions? It is not good to obstruct vital electoral tasks like voter list collection. Any political outfit—Baidya’s or some other group—should desist from such activities. But then it is equally important for the four parties to reach out to disgruntled groups. We should bring them on board for the polls. But none of the forces represented in the High Level Political Committee seems to have taken any initiative in this direction. Personally, I had raised this issue in the taskforce meeting. I had said it is vital to start dialogue with Baidyaji and Upendraji (Upendra Yadav) at the earliest. I had also said we needed to hold dialogues with Nepal Bar Association, civil society groups and all political fronts which opposed the 11-point pact. At the moment, Baidyaji has opposed the polls more aggressively. Obviously, we can sit down and discuss political issues with Baidyaji. But disruptive activities won’t do any good to them. As the current head of the HLPC, it is Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s responsibility to reach out to agitating parties. I don’t understand why he has shown no inclination to do so. There are speculations that UCPN (Maoist) is determined to keep CPN-Maoist out of the electoral process. I agree with you. I personally feel that Baburam Bhattarai and Pushpa Kamal Dahal are not sincere about bringing Baidyaji on board. I had even requested Dahal and Bhattarai to take initiatives. But they did not show any response. We need to start dialogue with Baidya and Upendra Yadav and bring them to HLPC, in accordance with the 11-point agreement. That said, we have no policy of isolating them. So far CPN-Maoist has shown no interest in being a part of HLPC. If we talk with them seriously, I think they will come around. How do you respond to the charges that the country is being run by a ‘four party syndicate’? This is a ludicrous allegation. Earlier they used to call us a three-party syndicate, now they have come up with a new coinage. When things do not move smoothly, they say it is because of four parties’ inability to arrive at necessary decisions. If we do not act they accuse us of not acting responsibly, if we do, they call us a syndicate and dictatorship. This is funny. The truth is that the four parties have taken up the responsibility to steer the country’s political course in a new direction. The four party unity is for a greater political cause. How would you describe the role of HLPC vis-à-vis the CJ-led government? HLPC gives its consent, counseling and advice to the government, when necessary. HLPC does not control the government, the constitutional provisions and laws do so. HLPC is a body formed to facilitate the government to carry out political tasks. It will create favorable environment to hold polls and deal with the challenges ahead. If the government had been political in nature, we would not need HLPC at all. NC had to suffer a humiliating defeat in Terai-Madhesh in the last polls. How would you evaluate the party’s prospects in the plains this time around? Support for NC is building up in Madhesh, especially after the dismal showing of Maoist-Madhesi coalition. People have become deeply disillusioned by Madhesi parties and Maoists. Madhesis do not consider Maoists a pro-federal party. I hold the same view. In fact, Maoism and federalism or communism and federalism are contradictory ideas. Madhesis have understood that Maoists cannot be federalists. The illusion among Madhesi people that Madhesi parties had forged an alliance with the Maoists to fulfill their aspirations is slowly dissipating. In last two years, they have seen that Madhesi leaders who signed ambitious deals with the Maoists failed to implement them miserably. Now people understand that Madhesi leaders supported UCPN (Maoist) only to reach positions of power. All this has made people in Madhesh feel NC is the only force they can rely on. They want NC to raise the issue of identity, federalism, inclusion, empowerment and proportional representation. If NC can clearly lay out its stand on democracy, federalism and inclusion and if the party selects the candidates who are in tune with the spirit of Tarai-Madhesh and who know the real problems facing the people, NC’s prospects in Madhesh are bright. I would say NC will get a sweeping victory in Madhesh. You have never lost an election from your constituency in Dhanusha. How hopeful are you this time? I have raised the issue of change. I am confident people will trust me. I have been constantly pushing for republic, federalism, inclusion, secularism and mixed electoral system by stepping on the platform of nationalism and democracy. I have been working for development and political awakening in my district. My voters are well aware of this. They know that I am doing all I can to advance their agenda in Kathmandu. People in Madhesh are in a mood to give NC one more chance. But like I said, it all depends on how NC leadership will capitalize on this advantage. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51993 Construction Solutions, a company promoted by Golchha Organization and Sharda Group, on Friday launched soil compactor from Hamm. Hamm products are manufactured in India, China and Germany using German technology by Wirtgen Group. Kriti Bhuju of Republica talked with Ramesh Palagiri, managing director and CEO of Wirtgen India, who visited Nepal to officially launch Hamm soil compactor in the domestic market. Excerpts: [break] Tell us something about Hamm as it is a new name in Nepali market. Hamm is a company established in 1878 to manufacture agricultural equipment. Hamm became a subsidiary of Wirtgen Group (WG) in 1999. WG recorded a turnover of 1 billion euros in 2012. WG deals with four different brands in the construction equipment sector: Wirtgen, Hamm, Vogele and Kleemann. We introduced Hamm in Nepal in November 2012. Wirtgen India manufactures 30 machines a month for Indian, Sri Lankan and Nepali markets. So what kind of products are you introducing in Nepal? Hamm has a wide range of products for soil and road compaction. Although we introduced Hamm compactor 311 D in Nepali market in November, we officially launched the product only on Friday. You said Hamm 311 D was introduced in November. How was the market response? Hamm 311D is doing really good in Nepali market. Our partner company, Construction Solutions, has already sold 6 units of Hamm 311 D, which means we have captured 30 percent share in Nepal´s soil compactors market. We have currently received 4 new orders for 311 D. They will be delivered within few weeks. How is Hamm different from other products available in Nepali market? Hamm 311 D is especially designed for countries like Nepal with difficult terrain. In India, we have Hamm 311 but 311 D is manufactured with additional driven drums to ensure better performance. Some of the highlights of Hamm 311 D are water cooled Cummins engine, 3 point pendulum articulated joint, driving comfort, modern display that informs driver about the machine condition, imported control panel and fuel efficiency. Besides, the machine with 11-ton operating weight can work in land surface with inclination of up to 30 degree which is best for Nepal. What about the availability of spare parts and after-sales support? Our partner company Construction Solutions has a huge stock of spare parts. It has offices in Kathmandu, Hetauda and Biratnagar to provide after-sales service. A team of experienced engineers and technicians with fully equipped mobile vans provides free services round the clock even in the country´s remotest regions. Are you planning to introduce more new products in Nepali market? As road expansion works are going on at a rapid pace in Nepal, we see a lot of potential in this market. We are planning to introduce tandem roller by the end of 2013 and asphalt paver in 2014. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51945 Binod Aryal is the executive director of Insurance Board -- the insurance sector regulator. Since his appointment to the post little more than a year ago, Aryal, under the leadership of Prof Dr Fatta Bahadur KC, the Board´s chairman, has launched series of reform measures to make the insurance sector more professional. In an interview with Rupak D Sharma of Republica, he talked about his experience so far, some of the decisions that have become controversial and upcoming plans. Excerpts:[break] You are known as ´terror´ in certain quarters of the insurance industry. How does it feel? People who have a habit of infringing law always complain when a strict enforcer arrives on the scene. Since joining the Insurance Board, the only thing I tried to do was introduce reforms in a sector which had become uncontrollable. The first task we did was increase the frequency of on-site inspections of insurance companies. From once in two to three years, we now visit an insurance company at least once a year. We are also hiring more people for this purpose. During these inspections, we found that most of these public companies did not have traits of a public company and were being operated more like a family business. All we tried to do was make them realize that they are guardians of public money and they should act like one. In this course, we introduced directives like corporate governance, which has limited remuneration of insurance company´s CEOs to up to 15 times of lowest-ranking staff. At the same time, we also tried to reduce corruption level to zero at our own institution. Take for instance the provision on over-time. No one is exploiting this facility at our office now. These measures have probably angered some people, but I´m not concerned. Despite good intentions, there are claims the Board isn´t working impartially. Take the case of NB Insurance. Why haven´t you been able to take action against the company? We took action against the company and suspended its entire business operation for the time being. Similar actions were taken against several other companies. Those who have followed our prescriptions are back in business. In NB´s case, it deposited Rs 35.3 million in a finance company, which was more than the ceiling fixed by us. We later allowed the company to do normal business on condition that it returns the money within a stipulated timeframe. It failed to meet the deadline and we have already issued a letter to the company seeking clarification. So you have formally sought clarification? Yes, we have. We will refer to prevailing laws and see what needs to be done. But why did you allow NB to conduct normal business despite finding it guilty, while denying to lift suspension order imposed on Everest Insurance´s fire portfolio? In NB´s case, we had sought commitment letter from its board, which they submitted. We had allowed the company to resume business based on the letter. We had also asked Everest Insurance to provide us a commitment letter stating that the advance payment of Rs 40 million, extended to a party related to one of the promoters, will be returned in case the reinsurance company fails to make the payment. If we receive such a letter, we will immediately allow the company to start conducting fire business. Once again, a public company should act like one and stop fiddling with funds collected from common people. You seem to have fought many battles following your appointment as executive director. Which one was the most difficult? I´ve never come across more shrewd people as in the sector of insurance. If this shrewdness, currently being employed negatively, is put into positive use then the entire sector could advance by leaps and bounds. I try to feed these facts into these people but they take it personally. Are you referring to protests that were launched after the Board put a cap on insurance companies´ expenditure? In that case life insurance companies were doling out unlimited amount of money to agents in the name of incentives. Who gave them the authority to spend up to Rs 92 of Rs 100 collected from the public? We have now said they can spend only up to six percent of annual gross premium income generated through sales of new policies on guest entertainment, business promotion, advertisement, and agent incentives. This has increased profit level of insurance companies. What about incentives given to agents of non-life insurance companies? I am also surprised by this practice of extending up to 15 percent of premium as commission to agents of non-life insurers. These companies have so many marketing agents in their payroll, yet they rely on agents. They even say over 90 percent of business comes from agents. In my opinion, the provision of 15 percent commission should be scrapped. We´re looking into this matter and will come up with a decision soon. There are also complaints that private auto insurance premiums are very high, despite low-risk entailed with the business. Is the Board doing anything in this regard? Yes, premium on private vehicle insurance is expensive in Nepal and it needs to be reviewed. Currently, a person who has bought a vehicle worth Rs 5 million has to pay around Rs 125,000 in annual premium. This is pretty high. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51829 Two of country’s best known right-wing parties, Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and Rastriya Janashakti Party (RJP), are all set to merge after the three-day unity general convention starting from April 5. The convention will elect a new leadership and look to consolidate the right’s electoral base in upcoming CA polls. Republica’s Mahabir Paudyal sat down with RPP President Pashupati Shamsher JB Rana to discuss the proposed unity, causes of frequent splits, and the unified party’s agenda for new polls.[break] Has the homework for the proposed unity between RPP and RJP been completed? We have completed unity processes in 72 districts. We hope to complete it in all the districts by March 28. We have chosen Kathmandu as the venue for general conference. We will be calling people to Kathmandu fairly soon. Ever since the advent of democracy in 1990, RPP has undergone many splits and unities. Why so? We (the RPP and its offshoots) have always done much better in national politics when united. When we united following the first split, we secured 18 percent of popular votes with about 18 MPs elected to the parliament in the second general election in 1994. With this, we could play an important role in forming governments under the leadership of Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa during the 1990s. Also, our party was doing pretty well. It is true that there have been several splits and unities. As for the proposed unity this time around, there are no major ideological differences between Rastriya Janashakti Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party. Both espouse the cause of nationalism, democracy and liberalism. And both the parties have endorsed republic. Hence the unity. KESHAB THOKER Is there any prospect of unity with Kamal Thapa-led Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Nepal? We are trying to forge unity with RPPN. The problem is our ideological differences on issues of monarchy and republic. If the past is anything to go by, the parties unite on poll eve. But soon differences start surfacing over power sharing in government and the unified party splits. We have learnt our lesson. This time the unity is going to be much more enduring. What is RPP’s stand on the formation of CJ-led government? There are two aspects to it. We have a lot of differences with the four parties regarding the process of government formation. But we accept election because there is no alternative to it. We believe the election will provide a way out from the terrible situation the country finds itself in now. On formation of the CJ-led government, we have reservations on several grounds. First, it violates the principle of separation of powers. If one man becomes both the chief justice and the chairman of council of ministers, it could create a disturbing situation. We are worried about the long-term consequences of violation of the principle of separation of powers, which is fundamental to a democracy. Second, the four parties are exercising monopoly over others, for which there is no constitutional ground. They have taken all the powers in their hands, they have appointed several ministers, and are going to appoint heads of the constitutional bodies like CIAA, Election Commission, Public Service Commission, judges, and many others at their discretion. And it worries me particularly because if ministers and constitutional heads are appointed by the four parties, there is a danger that election will be partisan towards the interests of the four parties and will go against the interests of the rest. This will ultimately violate the principle that elections should be free and fair. The four parties are exercising far too much power. And they have been creating the partisan situation. And this degree of partisanship will affect the free and fair nature of elections. This is our major concern. Do you imply that you endorse the CJ-led dispensation just because it is going to hold new polls? Two things made us accept the election government. One, we had been protesting for the ouster of the Baburam Bhattarai government and two, to try to pave the path to new CA elections. Now both these objectives have been fulfilled. But we are still against four-party monopoly. The country has taken a quantum leap on issues of identity, state restructuring and federalism. As a party that holds on to traditional beliefs, how do you convince voters? We have very strong agenda in favor of Janajatis, Madhesis, women, and people of marginalized communities. We have always stood by and advocated the cause of these deprived sections of the society. Personally I have been espousing these issues for quite a long time. In fact, I started raising these issues long before I entered politics. About 44 years ago, when I was working as a civil servant in the post of joint secretary during the Panchayat rule, I gave a talk to Master’s level students at Tribhuwan University. Then I had said that Madhesis and Janajatis had been excluded, that the state had not done enough for them, and that their representation in the civil service, bureaucracy, and army was very low. I said that the education status of Madhesis and Janajatis was far below the standard of their counterparts from the hills. And because of this, the government of the time sacked me. Back then, it became a big issue, and the paper that I had presented in the university talk program was circulated in many parts of the country. That may be true, but your party is still perceived to be pro-monarchy which believes in sticking to old values. I would say two things regarding this. We have accepted republic, which means we are no more a pro-monarchy party. We voted for republic in the first meeting of the CA. But there are some aspects of traditionalism that we respect. For example, secularism was declared in haste. There had been a great debate on whether the country should go republic or retain constitutional monarchy. But the issue of secularism was never discussed. It was unfair to declare the country secular without considering the views of 82 percent of Hindu population. So we not only opposed this particular move, but also registered our dissent in black and white. Yes, in some aspects we are traditional. Traditions form a base for nationalism. If you do not acknowledge history, how can you be a nationalist? Nationalism emerges from history. There is a perception that your party has not been able to inspire trust among the youth. Actually, we have a strong base of young cadres and supporters. We have strong student and youth organizations, which are very active. Let me turn to your constituency in Sindhupalchowk. In last CA polls, you suffered a setback for the first time in history. What led to that defeat? If one political group is armed and exploits all resources, muscle and everything, and the other has to contest them unarmed, defeat is natural. Believe me, eight poll booths were captured in constituency number three of Sindhupalchowk from where I was contesting. The Maoists had used all forces. Besides, they obstructed my way to several parts of the constituency, some of them my strongholds. It is said RPP could fare poorly in upcoming CA polls because it does not have a progressive agenda. Regarding progressive agenda, we accepted the agenda of state restructuring about a decade ago when Sher Bahadur Deuba was in power. We had said then that the state needed to be restructured to address the aspirations of Madhesis and Janajatis. Now, our idea of restructuring is this: We need to have seven provinces and those provinces should be delineated on the basis of inclusion, empowerment, equality, and economic viability. But we are not for division exclusively on the basis of ethnicity. You are born to a family of Maharajas. What brought you into politics? Yes, I am the grandson of a Maharaja. It was the idea of service which brought me into politics. My family ruled the country for 104 years. It was the time when some members of the family served the country in every way they could. I wanted to follow suit. In my constituency in Sindhupalchowk, I have done a great deal of development. When I first reached that district, there were no roads, no drinking water supply, and no schools. I have worked to bring education, drinking water, electricity, transportation and roads, and irrigation, among other things, within their reach. And this has given me great satisfaction. Of course, much more needs to be done. But compared to how it was forty years ago, when I began politics from Sindhupalchowk, it has changed a great deal. Partly because of your Maharaja legacy, many view your party as an organization that serves only the elites. That view is wrong. We are the party which believes in poor people. We believe that the poor need to be lifted, and all the policies we adopted in the past aimed to benefit the poor. Take the case of Sindhupalchowk. When you put in electricity in the homes of the rich and the poor, you cannot distinguish between the poor and the rich. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51846 Isabel M Guerrero is the Vice President for the South Asia Region of the World Bank. She joined World Bank in 1982 and has worked as the country director for Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Mexico and India. A national of Chile, Guerrero holds an M.Sc degree in Economics from the London School of Economics and Political Science (1981). Prem Khanal of Republica talked with Guerrero, who concluded three-day visit to Nepal on Tuesday. Excerpts:[break] Nepal has been passing through a series of political turmoil and lately parties have agreed to form an election government led by chief justice. How do you comment on the development? Despite the political upheavals that Nepal has passed through over the past four years, I feel that everybody is hopeful. Most of the political leaders that I met and hopeful that the latest political arrangement will take the country out of the transition and will allow it to focus once again on development. Nepal has made tangible achievements in the social sector over the last 50 years. But growth story has been slightly pessimistic mainly due to political instability. If the latest political arrangements work to hold elections and Nepal achieves political stability, I am hopeful that the growth will accelerate. Nepal and the World Bank have been celebrating 50 years of partnership. In your opinion, what have been the major achievements and failures in terms of development outcomes of Nepal? First of all I would like to recapture the history of our partnership. In the initial phase, both Nepal and the World Bank focused on developing infrastructure, including the power sector. Then we moved to the social sector development in a big way, which, I think, produced wonderful results. For example a child born today can expect to live 25 years longer than a child born in 1970. Similar achievements have been made in literacy rate and gender parity. Moreover, today more than 80 percent of the rural population has access to clean water and half of the total population has access to sanitation. Extreme poverty has been halved in just seven years. Child malnutrition, however, is still an issue. As far as the failures are concerned, with such a huge potential Nepal could have done much in power development not only to fulfill its domestic needs but also for export purpose. Nepal´s poor connectivity with other countries is still a concern. Similarly, poor governance mainly due to absence of strong institutions continued to be a big problem which is breeding corruption and instigating extortion. In your speech commemorating 50 years of development partnership with Nepal, you expressed concern over poor expenditure and rising corruption. Would you please elaborate your concern? We are having problems in disbursement due to lack of a full-fledged budget this year. We are worried that without disbursement there will be no development as it is a necessity but not sufficient condition for development. As a result, the capital expenditure has not been able to rise which is also a loss in terms of development. So we have said that expenditure needs to be increased in order to stimulate growth and development. As far as corruption is concerned, I have noted that political leaders, civil society members and the private sector agree that extortion and corruption is a major concern. As everybody agrees on the issue, I think the country has a strong consensus to tackle it. Again I say that there is a need for strong institutions to deal with the issues and I am hopeful that Nepal will take steps toward strengthening accountability institution. Power crisis has been major obstacles to economic development in Nepal. Is the World Bank planning to extend support for development of this sector? Yes, we have a program with different components to support power sector development in Nepal. One is the construction of transmission lines from India to Nepal. This will immediately increase power supply to Nepal. But we feel developing Nepal´s own vast resources is much more important and for that we are working with the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA). But weak financial health of NEA mainly due to loss of around 2 cents per unit in power trade is a problem. This is repelling investment in the sector. We are also working with the Investment Board for the development of bigger projects. There have been a lot of talks about the ongoing reforms at the World Bank. How do you think a small and underdeveloped country like Nepal can get benefits from such reform initiatives? The new president Jim Yong Kim has reiterated our mission to fight poverty. He has talked a lot about bending the arc of poverty which means there is the possibility of eliminating extreme poverty from the world in the next 15-20 years. We have seen a historic decline in poverty over the last 15-20 years mainly because of China and we hope that it will continue at a higher pace. Nepal will be a part of that mission and we believe Nepal has that potential as it has shown in the past. So, what impression you are taking back to Washington DC? I am hopeful that the latest arrangement will unlock the political impasse to hold election which we expect will open the way for our next Country Assistance Strategy that is going to be for 4-5 years rather than 1-2 years. I am hopeful of a prosperous future for the country. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51435 There is a lot of debate surrounding school education in developing countries like Nepal. The argument centers on whether the state is best suited to educate all its young, or if the private sector should be allowed to promote quality education. The jury in Nepal is still out. But following the government’s issuance of the Private and Boarding School Directive 2013 to regulate private schools, private school operators feel the odds have been stacked heavily against them. Private and Boarding School Association of Nepal (PABSON), the umbrella body of private schools, has thus refused to obey the new guidelines. Why this tussle? And what is the state of school education in the country? Mahabir Paudyal sat down with noted educationist Prof Dr Mana Prasad Wagley to find out. [break] Why do Nepali private education establishments seem so wary of regulation? You have to look into history to understand why. In 1971, the government nationalized all private and public schools. A decade later, in 1980, the government reversed its course and invited the private sector to establish private schools. The private school owners took this U-turn as a license to do as they pleased. In 33 years since, they have virtually colonized the country’s education sector. Now they have their organizations like PABSON and N-PABSON which have become stronger than government bodies. The private school owners think of themselves as more powerful than the government. And because the private schools produce higher percentage of SLC graduates than government schools, they think they need not abide by government rules. But in doing so aren’t they placing themselves above the law? They are. Private schools are yet to follow the country’s education regulations, which is mandatory for all schools. In this context, how can the government expect them to abide by simple guidelines issued by the Department of Education? The government should have strictly imposed education regulations on private schools first. PABSON representatives were consulted while preparing the guidelines. Why the tussle then? The government had invited representatives from PABSON and Guardians’ Association of Nepal (GAoN) for advice. PABSON officials had initially agreed to government guidelines too. But just before the guidelines were made public, some private school owners expressed their reservations and said they would not be able to follow the guidelines. Given their open defiance of education regulation, this is not a surprise. The regulation says that private school teachers should be treated on par with their government counterparts. But virtually no private school in the country has done so. Another reason private school bosses defy the government is their connections with government ministers. For example, former president of PABSON, Umesh Shrestha, is a member of the advisory committee in Baburam Bhattarai government. Such connections make private school operators believe they are the stronger than the state. If the private schools do not follow government rules, they should shut down. PABSON is trying to justify the unjustifiable. It is opposing even the simple and most basic regulation regarding classroom size, hygiene and nutrition in school and hostel and charges on registration and admission fees. Could the guardians of school going children have put more pressure on PABSON to follow government guidelines? Perhaps the Guardians’ Association of Nepal (GAoN) president Suprabhat Bhandari has done all he can. This time he has even sent a black flag to PABSON central office. But he cannot do more because GAoN is a powerless entity. And private schools are aware of GAoN’s weakness. But I don’t mean to dismiss GAoN altogether. In fact, it was the first organization which protested the excesses of the private schools in 1995. I myself was working as its senior vice president then. You seem to imply that no one is really committed, from the government bureaucrats to private school operators, in regulating private establishments. Exactly. For a number of reasons. One, private school owners have to distribute certain scholarships. A PhD dissertation from Kathmandu University School of Education has clearly pointed out that private schools are not transparent in scholarship distribution. Beneficiaries of scholarship are often the near and dear ones of the secretaries, joint secretaries, politicians, ministers and parliament members. Two, there is evidence that private schools bribe district education officers. In fact, private school operators have even paid for the wedding ceremony of the daughter of one education secretary. In such a situation, I do not believe the government will be able to control private schools. The recent guideline is only a farce. If so, will the irregularities in private schools never be eliminated? How will they be? Sitting and former education ministers have their own private schools. Secretaries have their shares in private schools. In this situation, how can we expect them to be committed to eliminating irregularities? Are you implying that education minister Dinanath Sharma also owns a private school? I came to know about this during BBC’s Sajha Sawal in which minister Sharma and I were in the discussion panel. Sharma claimed that he had done certain things for “my school.” Sharma is not alone. All past education ministers vowed to regulate private schools. The fact that the monopoly of private schools has only gotten worse suggests government ministers and secretaries are part of the problem. I believe the government came up with the new guideline not because it really wants to regulate private schools but because it was forced to do so after a Supreme Court verdict which set clear rules for private schools. If the SC had not issued the verdict, perhaps the government would not have introduced the guideline. The guidelines have drastically cut back on registration, admission and monthly charges that private schools can levy. How will the schools sustain themselves on such meager revenues? You have a point. But private schools have been charging exorbitant fees even for things like swimming pool and furnishing the principal’s office. They sell textbooks at inflated prices. They sell dress items like ties, belts and shirts and pants like retail shoppers. The SC verdict and government’s guidelines are meant to check such irregularities. If the private schools had been providing quality education, perhaps their resentments would have been justified. But they are only promoting rote learning and have shown no creativity. Their sole objective is to have a high SLC pass percentage. How they manage to maintain such results is interesting. They set up everything beforehand. For example, if students of my school have exam center at your school, I request you to group weaker students with brighter ones so that every examinee passes. The guideline has proposed merging schools with few students and poor infrastructure with bigger schools. I do not see why the private school owners are so keen to run schools with less than 100 students by paying thousands in monthly rent. Despite all this, it would be a mistake to put all the blame on private school owners. Even the government is facilitating privatization of education. How so? Take Kathmandu valley where there are less than 300 public schools but more than 1,200 private schools. Because there are so few public schools, even the poorest of the poor have no option but to send their wards to private schools. We have a government led by UCPN (Maoist). The party has made its opposition to private education known since the insurgency days. Are the new guidelines motivated by Maoist ideology? Not at all. Around 300 private schools are run by Maoist leaders. And why would they want to abolish private schools when their student bodies have made private schools a lucrative source of income? You have been a vocal critic of Nepal’s education system. What is the major problem of our education system and how can it be fixed? Our education system is outdated. There are certain things the government can do to revive the system. First, the national philosophy of education must be defined. The government is not clear what it wants the educated people to do for the country. Two, it should set core minimum standard (CMS) in all subjects. And unless the students meet CMS, they should not be allowed into higher grades. Once we have CMS in place, every SLC graduate, no matter where s/he may have passed SLC, whether from Darchula or Kathmandu, will gain certain standard. There would not be vast competence gap between students of Kathmandu and, say, students coming from public schools from remote areas. Third, curriculum should be designed so as to promote student competence. The current practice is that textbooks are taught without following the curriculum. Office of the Controller of Examination sets questions based on textbooks. Our text-book based teaching is only promoting cognitive learning, leaving the other key domains like affective and psycho-motor learning untouched. Fourth, we have to have standardized tests like TOEFL and IELTS instead of teacher-centric tests like SLC. If we follow these four guidelines, the standard of public schools will definitely improve. And with it, problems of private schools will be solved. People will stop sending their children to private schools. In eight or ten years, we will have very few private schools in Nepal. How should private school education be regulated then? I would say private sector should not be allowed to run schools at all. School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP) has clearly defined grade one to 12 as school education. School education should be the state’s responsibly. After all, people pay tax for basic services like education and health. The government needs to take a bold step to shut down private schools and take up the responsibility of educating its people in its hand. That sounds a little utopian. Not at all. If the government passes the resolution today and issues a strong directive, I do not believe this is an impossible task. What the government lacks is strong will (daro mutu). Short of shutting them down, we need to have a separate act to regulate private schools, for act would be more binding than directives and guidelines. If we had a private school act in 1980, we would not have had to bear with the anomalies in private schooling now. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51056 Sharada Bhusal, a native of Mahottarai, has been on an unrelenting crusade against corruption at local bodies since 2007. She has had to overcome many obstacles in her mission to establish a corruption-free society. Bhusal has been in news recently for her fast-unto-death in front of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) against local-level corruption and for effective anti-corruption mechanisms. She ended her fast on Monday following a written agreement with the government. Republica’s Thira L Bhusal and Mahabir Paudyal talked to her about the genesis of her struggle, the state of corruption in the country and her future plans. [break] First of all, what made you take the drastic step of holding a fast-unto-death? Our goal is to eliminate corruption from the country. We started our protest at the local level as corruption is rife from Village Development Committees (VDCs) to CIAA. We formally started this campaign in 2007 by forming a committee. Informally, it goes even further back. In 1999, when local bodies were still functional, as a member of my village council of Danauli-Banauli VDC in Mahottari, I had been invited to a meeting. When I reached there, they said the meeting was only a formality and decisions had been made. They asked me to put my signature on the paper. I refused. I was astonished when Raghavendra Jha (then a local-level leader and now a regional chairman of NC) took off his shoes, pressed his right toe on the stamp pad and put down the ‘thumb-print’ on my behalf. I snatched the register off his hands and tore it. I have been fighting against this scourge ever since. What are your main demands? Accountability and transparency. Government allots billions of rupees for local development. But there is no transparency. Nobody knows where the money goes. The local level office bearers are not answerable to the people. We believe the government should also protect people’s right to information (RTI). If we all exercise RTI, it could help minimize corruption to some extent. What sorts of irregularities are common at the local level? It is mainly misuse of government funds but there are other things as well. For example, the VDC secretary does not reach office on time, nor does he deliver timely service to the people. He arbitrarily charges fees for documentation works such as providing recommendation letters for citizenship cards, registering births, deaths, marriages and migration, collecting 250 to 500 rupees in return. When it comes to certifying someone as a landless squatter, he can charge as much as 2,000 rupees. Seldom does he give you any receipt. Party representatives and VDC secretaries hold meetings in expensive hotels and collude to misappropriate funds. The local leaders who had nothing in the past now have big buildings in Janakpur, luxury cars and impressive bank balance. If they had not misused VDC fund how would they afford all these? On the back of such wealth, they develop good connections with district officers such as SP, CDO and LDO. But VDC secretaries and local party representatives misuse fund in a planned and careful manner. How so? If you check the audit and other reports, you will see many development works have been carried out. But out in the field, there is nothing. If you check the document, you will see that my VDC has bought a computer and hired a woman computer operator. You see participation of women members in decision making as well. But not a single woman is ever consulted. They forge the signatures of all such women. A lady named Rima Kumari has been appointed computer operator and receives Rs 10,000 in monthly salary. But she does not have to attend the office nor does she have to work on a computer, as there is none. She is entitled to this benefit because she is the wife of a central committee member of NC’s student wing, Nepal Students Union. I have proof of all such irregularities. The level of corruption is believed to be even higher at the center. How will your initiative focused at the local level help anti-corruption efforts at the center? Let us not forget, these VDC secretaries and local party representatives I am talking about are connected with district and central authorities. They have a nexus with government ministers and high level politicians. And then there are unions affiliated to various political parties which get protection from the center. The worst thing is there are unions even in the CIAA. This nexus starts from the local level and permeates the center. The goal is to break the bottom rung of this ladder. You have spoken out against the threats and abuses you have received. Can you elaborate? When I started the campaign against corrupt VDC secretaries and local party representatives, they beat me up and tried to strip me in front of CDO and LDO, who simply looked on. I received threats from these people during the nine-day hunger strike as well. They abused me with foul language on the telephone. On Tuesday night, UCPN (Maoist) Mahottari District Committee Member Sunil Thakur threatened me over the phone that they would break my legs, cut off my tongue and fingers and render me incapable to walk, speak and write. But even in this situation, CIAA has been acting very irresponsibly. Last year when I started my hunger strike against VDC secretary Satrudhan Mishra, CIAA’s investigation officer Ram Gopal Shrestha suspended him in two days. Later the same Ram Gopal Shrestha went to the district to look into the case. But his team did nothing. Instead they ate and drank with the corrupt people and returned to Kathmandu. Following this, the VDC secretary was reinstated. The reinstated VDC secretary’s son telephoned me and said he had paid 0.9 million rupees in cash to Shrestha to reinstate his father. He said he would kill me. I asked the CIAA on what basis he had been reinstated, but got no response. Did any high level political leader show any support for your campaign? Not at all. I submitted a memorandum on January 27 to all concerned authorities before I began my hunger-unto-death. A few days later I inquired if anything was being done. I learnt that all of the memos and complaint letters had been sent to Home Ministry’s Peace and Security Division. Then I decided that they would not listen to me easily. Then, on February 14, I submitted my 11-point charter of demands. On February 13, CIAA secretary Bharatraj Joshi had asked me not to go on a strike. He said it would defame CIAA nationally and internationally. I told him on his face that there is corruption from VDC to the CIAA, there are 84,000 cases pending at his office. This was not a matter of shame for him. And now that we were starting our hunger strike against corruption, they were saying they would be defamed. He said if I started hunger strike international donor agencies would stop offering billions in grants to CIAA. I told him that if this was how CIAA operated, it might not be long before we had to start a struggle to abolish it. How would you evaluate the level of corruption in the current government? It’s for CIAA to decide whether anyone is corrupt. But virtually every minister is corrupt. Take Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai. He goes on village junkets every month as per his “Prime Minister with the People” program, with around a dozen other officials in tow. He uses the helicopter to fly to and fro from Kathmandu, spending hundreds of thousands of rupees. Is this not a form of corruption? Corruption is deeply entrenched in Nepali society. Do you believe individual efforts like yours will make much of a difference? Someone had to start somewhere. If someone had started it two decades ago, perhaps we would be living in a less corrupt society today. I have started it now and I hope I will be successful one day. It may not be possible during my lifetime, but surely my children and grandchildren will get to live in a less-corrupt society thanks to our effort. And I am not alone. There is a huge mass of corruption victims across the country. The problem is they are not organized while corrupt people have an established nexus. So we are planning to form a struggle committee in every district. The most important tool to fight corruption is to exercise our right to information. If we exercise this right and demand for information from local bodies, we can see for ourselves where irregularities are happening. But again we should be clear that we cannot completely uproot corruption. We will only be able to minimize it. But I am not going to give up. I will fight against corruption till my last breath. You ended your hunger strike after a settlement with the government. What if your demands are not addressed again? First let me be clear, I have not ended the hunger strike. I have only stalled it for time being. Government officials seemed more serious about our demands this time than before. As my campaign has spread around the country and gained wider media support, it won’t be possible for them to sweep our agenda under the carpet. If they still cheat me, their dishonesty will be proven. I will restart my campaign and will not relent until all our demands are fulfilled. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=50681 The decision of the four major political forces to appoint sitting Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi as the head of the new election government has ignited heated controversy among political parties, intellectuals and the legal fraternity alike. Even within Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, large sections are still vehemently opposed to the idea of a sitting justice holding the top executive post. Kosh Raj Koirala and Mahabir Paudyal spoke to senior Nepali Congress leader Dr Ram Sharan Mahat to get a better understanding of the behind-the-scenes negotiations, the party’s position on the issue and the way ahead for the country. [break] Why is Nepali Congress rooting for CJ-led government despite growing opposition from within your own party? This was not our first choice. We accepted it because no other alternative was acceptable to the ruling Maoist-Madhesi coalition. We wanted our own party president to lead the election government. So when UCPN (Maoist) wanted us to name our candidate, we proposed President Sushil Koirala. But they (the Maoists) backed out. Then we floated other alternatives like civil society leader Daman Nath Dhungana and former CJs. But they did not agree to this either. The sitting CJ was the only person they agreed to. Because, they said no other person could be as neutral as CJ. Under these circumstances, we accepted the CJ to head the election government. We thought if this was the only way to get rid of the present government and if it provided a way out, we should go for it. Did Congress officially propose the names of Dhungana and former CJs? We proposed these names during the meeting between three parties and Madhesi Front. But Prachanda flatly rejected it. He said the proposal came too late. But in the process Congress has compromised on the time-honored democratic principle of separation of power. I do not accept that allegation. Separation of powers means three organs of the state—the executive, the judiciary and the legislative—should remain independent. Then there are checks and balances. I accept that the two institutions—executive and judiciary—can’t be combined and don’t combine. In fact, I was the first person to oppose the idea when Prachanda floated it from UCPN (Maoist)’s general convention in Hetauda last month. I had publicly said that the head of the judiciary leading the election government was totally unacceptable. I even said Prachanda has made himself a political laughing stock by making such a proposal. But if the CJ, after assuming the executive office, is detached completely from judicial functions, that can be considered under a special situation. Besides, CJ’s performance as the head of the government will be subject to judicial scrutiny by a separate judicial branch. There will be separate acting CJ when he (the current CJ) takes up the job of PM. Even after he completes his tenure and goes back to the judiciary, he will not be part of any decision concerning the actions of his government. In other words, if the CJ is kept completely divorced from judicial functions and the issue of conflict of interest is resolved satisfactorily through proper arrangements, then the principle of separation of power won’t be violated. After all, we are not the only country which is going to experiment with this option. In many other democratic countries, like Greece, judicial heads have held PM’s post to conduct the polls. There is a concern that to rid of Bhattarai government, NC and UML have paved the path for a different form of authoritarianism. How do you respond? The country could not accept Gyanendra’s authoritarian rule. Even Prachanda could not impose his authoritarian rule, nor could Baburam Bhattarai. How can I believe that a judicial head like Khil Raj Regmi would turn into an authoritarian ruler? Besides, public awareness is so high these days. There is the President as the guardian to protect the constitution, and political parties, the media and the civil society are strong check against such prospects. If any person nurses authoritarian ambition in this country he or she is bound to fail. Hasn’t the recent deal given out the message that the political parties have been a complete failure? I don’t call it a total failure. But their failure is obvious. They could not draft constitution in four years time. And for the past eight months there is a caretaker government with no constitutional, ethical and political legitimacy. Yet we are under this government. We have not been able to give an alternative. This is a failure. Let us be very frank. The whole political and constitutional process has failed. We are in the situation which the constitution had not envisaged. This is an abnormal situation which is outside the ambit of constitution. So you have to find the solution by going beyond the constitution. There is an apprehension that CJ-led government won’t be able to hold the polls. How optimistic are you? There are risks. But if political parties and all others cooperate with him fully, there is certainly a possibility. This is why the CJ was very careful. He wanted commitment from the four major political forces to hold the polls. He accepted the offer only after the leaders of four political parties offered the CJ total cooperation. Whether or not he will be able to hold polls depends on the extent of cooperation that political parties and other forces including the bureaucracy will lend to CJ’s government. It also depends on the quality of cabinet members he chooses. CPN-Maoist and other parties have said they will boycott polls held under the CJ. They have even announced street protests. If they believe in the constitutional process, they have to participate in the election. If they don’t, people have the right to question their democratic and constitutional credentials. But they have a point when they say that they should also be consulted. If we really want to seek solution to the crisis, we should take on board all other forces including the CPN-Maoist and Upendra Yadav-led Madhesi Front. Some say CJ-led government was a Maoist idea. Sushil Koirala claims it was President Ram Baran Yadav’s idea. Whose idea was it anyway? It was the President’s idea. After repeated failure to form consensus government and build consensus among the political parties, the President had no choice but to think of an alternative. He thought may be the sitting CJ could be the alternative. Prachanda knew this and announced the proposal during his party’s convention, which he should not have done. Prachanda’s intention was to sabotage the proposal. By announcing it in his party convention rather than by building agreement through interparty dialogue, he must have thought that he made the proposal unacceptable to other parties. Through this process, he wanted to kill the process. But what we are doing now is fighting his design by using his own proposal. Many believe the idea of CJ-led government came from India and EU representatives. Even your President has spoken about the unrelenting pressure from the EU. I don’t know about India. But I met some EU ambassadors when they came to meet our party President. They said that ‘if you think this idea is against the principle of separation of power, there are examples in Europe where CJ-led governments have conducted the polls. Last year it happened in Greece. What we say is that it does not violate the principle of separation of power if there are sufficient checks and balances. You have to hold polls at the earliest and have an elected government in place. Because lack of an elected government is denting Nepal’s image in the international community. And this could hamper potential development assistance and could harm your national interests.’ This is what they said. I have not met any Indian diplomats in connection with this proposal. I do not care where the proposal comes from if it is not against the interests of our country. There is a tendency in Nepal to smell conspiracy in practically every proposal. At the same time foreigners also try to give unsolicited advice. Both the tendencies are wrong. What will be the nature of the election government? We have not taken any decision in this regard yet. There are a lot of things to do. The proposal to remove difficulties is yet to materialize. Then there is a court hearing. No concrete step can be initiated before the court decision. Regarding the nature of cabinet, our proposal on the table is that it will be basically a technocratic government comprising of former civil servants and former officials of the judiciary with an impeccable record of public service and administrative experience and without any political affiliation. How long do you think will it take to have a new government in place? There are three steps to be completed. One, an agreement among the parties on removing constitutional hurdles is yet to be reached. Once we agree on this, such an agreement will have to be endorsed by the President by invoking article 158 of ‘removing difficulties.’ Then there is a case pending at the Supreme Court whose verdict is due on March 7. We have to await the outcome of these three things before any concrete steps are taken to form the new government. How realistic is the prospect of June polls? June is our target. But unless the new government is formed and it assesses the feasibility of holding polls in June how can you be sure elections will happen in June? If we cannot make it by June, there must be some flexibility. It can go up to November. What will NC’s slogan for the new polls be? How will you answer the people who will accuse you of compromising on democratic principles by violating the principle of separation of powers? Like I said before, people are free to make their own interpretations in a democracy. We have never made any compromise on fundamental positions. The political parties which believed in class struggle, revolution, and dictatorship of the proletariat, are now following in the footsteps of the NC, committing themselves to pluralism, multiparty system and competitive politics. Political parties that opposed foreign investment until recently are following the economic policies NC had initiated to attract private investment and FDI long ago. Besides, Bhattarai, who claimed his was the only legitimate government to hold the polls is now giving way to neutral leadership. This is our victory, not loss. As for separation of power, there could be various interpretations. It is not absolute but a relative concept. Different democracies have different practices. Besides, we have been using judiciary to conduct the polls even in the past. Why do you forget that fact? In ever election all election officers are district or regional judges. The notion that using judges for election violates separation of power is wrong. How do you think will NC fare in the next election? There will be a huge support for NC, for sure. People had given new forces a chance. They have completely shattered people’s expectations. Now there will be a resurgence of support for us. There is also a view that if the NC had joined Bhattarai government earlier, when Maoist chair Dahal was offering major portfolios to NC, it could have helped avoid the current crisis. How could we join the government that we said had no moral, constitutional and political legitimacy? We could not have joined the government which unilaterally dissolved the CA on May 27. Yes, we should have brought the vote of no confidence against Bhattarai, when we still had CA in place. Yes, we should have come forward with alternatives, when they said they were ready to discuss third party alternatives. But I doubt Maoists would have accepted them. We made mistakes in the past. But not joining BRB’s government was not a mistake at all. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=50284 As deliberations over a CJ-led election government continues between the four major political forces, other political parties have been expressing their dissatisfaction over the whole process from which they feel left out. The biggest opponent of a CJ-led government has been CPN-Maoist, which organized Nepal banda against the decision on Tuesday. Kiran Pun and Biswas Baral talked to party secretary Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplap’ to understand the position of ‘dash’ Maoists on government formation and broader national politics. [break] How has CPN-Maoist taken the proposal for formation of election government under the sitting chief justice? Let there be no doubt. This proposal has not come with the intent of providing a breakthrough in the stalled political and constitutional process. I would say this proposal has come on the whim of certain leaders with vested interests. It has come without adequate analysis of the prevailing political situation. Your party has publicly blamed India for trying to impose this proposal on Nepal. If you analyze the proposal, you can say that this [India] factor played some part. The way it came out is a little suspicious. There should have been efforts to take all political forces into confidence, rather than bring out such a proposal from within a small coterie of leaders. Now that the proposal for a CJ-led government has been floated, can’t there be political understanding on it? The only way out at present is broad understanding among the forces ranging the whole political spectrum. The need of the hour is a new political understanding that supersedes the 12-point agreement and the comprehensive peace accord, which brings all political players, from the left to the right, on one platform. PHOTO: KIRAN PUN What can be the basis of such an agreement? The current crisis emanates from the breach of the 12-point agreement and the CPA. This has created great misunderstanding among the parties. We need a new understanding to turn this misunderstanding into new understanding. What are the chances CPN-Maoist will accept the proposal for government under Chief Justice? This is a completely unscientific proposal. To accept it would be tantamount to pushing the country into another cycle of uncertainty and chaos. To believe that the same leaders who were responsible for the demise of the Constituent Assembly and the same ones who have been systematically dismantling the basis of all past understandings will arrive at an acceptable solution is laughable. It is not just the question of whether a CJ-led government will be acceptable to us. We believe the whole process is flawed. So you don’t believe the CJ-led government is being formed for timely CA polls? I cannot rule out the possibility that the Chief Justice-led government was proposed with the aim of holding new polls. But even so, as national politics currently stands, there can be no election. When Baburam Bhattarai announced elections for Nov 22, he might have done so in good faith, but he could not even bring Nepali Congress and CPN-UML on board. Even if the two parties are on board this time, the majority of the people, intellectuals and politicians will still oppose the idea. How will polls be possible without their consent? In your view, what is the way out of the current crisis? What Nepal needs at the moment is broad political understanding. It is up to the big political parties to create an atmosphere for such an agreement. Will you take part in new CA polls if they are held? If there can be broad political agreement, why not? Election is an important symbol of a democratic process, which we accept wholeheartedly. CPN-Maoist has been talking up the option of roundtable conference. But the party has not taken any initiative towards this goal. We will revive that agenda at the right moment. Right now, our party is not in a position to play a decisive role. Until we are in a position to play such a role, we will continue on the current course of protests and talks. Let’s change the track a bit. UCPN (Maoist) is establishing a ‘production brigade’ to employ its cadres who are now without any work. Does CPN-Maoist have a similar plan to employ its cadres? This is a ridiculous idea proposed by Prachanda. The same leaders who disbanded the PLA, exploited its members and usurped their hard-earned money are now coming up with these big ideas. As far as our party is concerned, we don’t see the problems of our cadres in isolation and as different from the problems faced by the vast majority of Nepalis. The question of compensations comes only when cadres believe they should be compensated for fighting on people’s behalf. The only way the lot of our cadres as well as the broader Nepali population can be improved is through a forward-looking revolution. We are voluntary revolutionists, nor mercenaries. UCPN (Maoist) leaders have been blaming your party of acting in desperation and trying to enlist the help of former royalists. This is only an attempt to divert attention away from the main issue. In their reckoning, apparently only the king is ‘nationalistic’. But people are the true nationalists. To spot the nationalists only among the residents of Narayanhiti and Baluwatar is an illusion. In fact, it was Prachanda who asked me to talk to [former Army chief] Rookmangud Katawal and erstwhile royalists. He apologized to Katawal right in front of my eyes [for sacking him in 2009]. We should not be narrow-minded. We should enlist the help of all those who want to take the country on a progressive path. Instead of blaming former royalists for wanting to join our protests because the country is in a crisis, Prachanda should himself join us. For the ex-monarchs to realize that the country is in a deep crisis, while the leaders of a party that went to war to safeguard people’s rights would be deeply unfortunate. Gyanendra at least abdicated his throne. But here you have a long line of leaders lining up to visit Siliguri and New Delhi. If some foreign power proposes to make one of them the new king, they would readily sell the country. You are often blamed for instigating the break in UCPN (Maoist) because of your vaulting ambitions. Is there any truth to the allegation? They [Prachanda and Bhattarai] are right. If we had no higher ambitions, why would we fight at all? Instead of fighting, we could have served in the kitchens of Bhattarai and Prachanda. There is nothing wrong in being ambitious. But one should also not be overly ambitious. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=49914 The UCPN (Maoist) proposal for election of a sitting Chief Justice as the new prime minister has raised a storm of controversy. Why a sitting Chief Justice? Are the Maoists trying to dismantle the last remaining organ which could check government excesses? If so, what could be its impact on national politics and the judiciary? Republica’s Biswas Baral and Gani Ansari talked to senior lawyer and constitutional law expert Bhimarjun Acharya to understand the motive and implications of the new Maoist proposal. [break] How do you evaluate the proposal of UCPN (Maoist) to make the sitting Chief Justice the new prime minister? I believe this is a completely flawed proposal. There are four main reasons I say this. One, Article 106 of the interim constitution forbids the deputation of the sitting Chief Justice and other justices of the Supreme Court to any other work besides those related to the judiciary. Clause 2 of the same Article prevents retired Supreme Court justices from being deputed anywhere except the National Human Rights Commission. The basic philosophy is that the judges do not carry out their responsibility expecting future rewards. Two, Nepal’s is a party-based system. In such a system, political representatives should run the state machinery. If today the political parties shift that power to some other place, there is no guarantee that the power will return to the political parties. Three, there is the question of check and balance and separation of powers. All established democracies in the world follow this principle. In order to safeguard liberty and uphold the constitution and rule of law, the three organs of the state must have different structures, functions and powers. If all the powers are concentrated in one person, the whole system becomes corrupt. If the same person is made the head of the judiciary as well as the executive, that would be a perversion of democracy. Four, the proposal is also not pragmatic. PHOTO: BHASWOR OJHA At a time when even established political parties are struggling to manage the fluid political situation, it is unrealistic to hope that a non-political person might do the job. Ultimately, if the proposal of sitting Chief Justice as prime minister passes, there will be no election, the party system will collapse and the country’s judiciary will be in shambles. Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi has been silent on the whole affair. How have you interpreted his silence? His silence is unfortunate. At a time there has been so much controversy around him, he should have been able to say he is not interested in the Maoist proposal as it is against the norms and values of independent judiciary. His silence suggests a few things. First, it raises the suspicion that the current proposal was brought with his consent. It also brings into question the past decisions of the Supreme Court, like its verdict against extension of the Constituent Assembly. Second, all those occupying responsible positions, be it the President, the prime minister or the chief justice, should understand that no one is above the law. There is a trend in Nepal to believe that once you get to certain influential positions, you have the liberty to subvert the law. They should rid themselves of this illusion. The Chief Justice derives his power as the head of the Supreme Court and the judiciary from the constitution. Now just because some political party has proposed him as the prime minister, he cannot go against the constitution. I interpret the Chief Justice’s silence as a slap on the face of rule of law, constitutionalism and Nepal’s rich judicial legacy. The Maoists have been accused of trying to dismantle all organs that can hold the government accountable. Do you believe the proposal of sitting Chief Justice as prime minister is a part of that plan? Yes, there are many reasons to think so. We can take the documents and utterances of the party which brought this proposal as our points of reference. In many of their documents, the Maoists have alleged Nepali judiciary of being status quoist, which is reluctant to embrace change. They have alleged Nepali judges of being regressive. Their leaders also repeatedly talk about the biased judiciary. Now the Maoists are trying to paint the head of the same judiciary as a progressive who is capable of extricating the country from the current quagmire. No sensible person can believe that this proposal has come in good faith. It is unfortunate that the judiciary, the Chief Justice and other political parties have not been able to understand this. This proposal has not come with the intention of holding an election but to destroy any remaining integrity of the judiciary. What are the implications of appointing a sitting Chief Justice as the executive head? First, if the sitting Chief Justice is made the prime minister, he at once becomes the head of both the executive as well as the judiciary. This is an anti-thesis of democracy, rule of law and separation of powers. The message it will send is that Nepal is no more a democratic country. Second, the integrity of the judiciary will be compromised. Third, it will send a message that Nepali political parties have been a complete failure and are incapable of running the country. What if the Chief Justice is made the prime minister after his resignation from the judiciary? The message will be the same more or less. The capability of the political parties and the integrity of the judiciary will still be questioned, and it will still go against Article 106 of the interim constitution which forbids any sitting or retired Supreme Court justices from holding any government office. To say that the constitutional hurdles will be cleared if the Chief Justice takes up the PM’s post after resigning from his judicial duties is a lie. But aren’t there international precedents of the Chief Justice leading an election government, as in Bangladesh? In no established democracy has a sitting or retired Chief Justice held the chief executive post. The trend exists only in some transitional and authoritarian democracies. Yes, there was a provision in Bangladesh whereby the sitting judge as the head of an advisory council could hold election. But this constitutional provision has been removed since it went against the principle of check and balance and separation of powers. There is still such a provision in Bhutan. But how can the authoritarian Bhutan be a role model for Nepal? In Egypt, a similar arrangement has been highly controversial. Again, no established democracy has such an irresponsible system. What is the harm in electing the Chief Justice as new prime minister if it helps provide a breakthrough in the long-stalled political and constitutional process? Let no one be in any doubt. The current Maoist proposal does not come with any intent of ending the protracted political and constitutional crisis. There are hundreds of options for new prime minister. Why are the Maoists insisting on a sitting justice? If the Baburam Bhattarai government can take the opposition into confidence, he can hold the election himself. Or the Bhattarai government can make way for a government led by one of the opposition parties. Still another option is fresh polls under the leadership of any of the 33 parties represented in the erstwhile Constituent Assembly. If all these options fail, there are countless Nepalis who are competent to become the prime minister. The reason the Maoists have been insisting on the chief justice despite the availability of all these options is that they want the whole system to collapse. If the current Chief Justice reigns, how will the void at the top of the judiciary be filled? The Chief Justice is the head of the Judicial Council which makes recommendations on new Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice. In the absence of the Chief Justice, the council will not be able to sit. Thus if the Chief Justice is appointed the prime minister after he resigns from the judiciary, it could invite an even bigger crisis. Constitutionally, what is the best way out of the current crisis? The current crisis is centered on government formation, new election and filling of vacant constitutional bodies. To some extent this is a constitutional crisis, but to a larger extent it is a political crisis. The crisis of government can be ended by stepping on Article 38 (1) of the interim constitution, which provisions for consensus government. The government can be formed in one of the four ways I discussed above. It is said that there are constitutional barriers to election, but that is a lie. The election can be held without any amendment to the interim constitution. All that we need are new electoral laws, which can be brought through an ordinance. But there is a constitutional hurdle to appointments in constitutional bodies, which call for parliamentary hearing. The President can clear this hurdle by using his prerogative to ‘remove difficulties’. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=49445 The seventh UCPN (Maoist) general convention in Hetauda has garnered the attention of the whole nation. Although the party has already endorsed its political document and settled top leadership positions ahead of the national gathering, there is a belief that the general convention will mark political transformation of the Maoist party and could be instrumental in breaking the logjam in national politics. Republica’s Kiran Pun caught up with Maoist vice-chairman and prime minister Baburam Bhattarai on the sidelines of the Heutada conclave to learn more about the general convention and the future course of national politics. [break] Many Maoist watchers are seeing the party’s seventh general convention as just a ritual. How should the common people understand what the Maoist general convention is all about? Our party launched the people’s war to change the face of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal Nepal. At the end of the people’s war, we were able to transform the Nepali society, by abolishing monarchy and the unitary system. Now, our goal is to secure the gains of the people’s war like secularism and republicanism. The capitalistic revolution is complete. As such, we will now look to complete the unfinished work through peaceful means, with the ultimate goal of establishing socialism. Will it be right to say that the general convention is just a way of lending formality to the developments since the historic Chunbang meeting in 2005? No. Like I said, we have completed the capitalistic revolution, for which people’s war was mandatory. Now we can complete the rest of the work through peaceful means. For that we need to change our production system, from an agricultural setup to an industrial setup. We will try to enhance Nepal’s status as a sovereign and developed country by widening its international engagements. PHOTO: KIRAN PUN In the words of Baidya-led CPN-Maoist leaders, you have betrayed the legacy of people’s war by abandoning the revolution halfway. Is that the case? No. It is wrong to say we left halfway. The revolution continues. Yesterday, we fought against the semi-feudal system, overthrew monarchy and ended the unitary system. This marked the completion of a phase of our revolution. Basically, we have completed our revolution. All that is left is to root out the fossils of the feudalist system that still remain. It has also been said that the seventh general convention will mark formal conversion of UCPN (Maoist) into a parliamentary party. This allegation is leveled by those who do not understand the Maoist party, or the nature of change of Nepali society. The Maoist party has changed according to the needs of the times. When the time was ripe for an armed struggled, we bore arms. Now that we believe peaceful politics is the way to go forward, we are walking the path of peace. So again, this is just a new phase of the revolution. We have not abandoned our old line; we have only fine-tuned it. Does your reluctance to accept that UCPN (Maoist) is transforming into a parliamentary party stem from the defamation of traditional parliamentary parties in recent times? Republicanism, secularism, inclusion and awareness of people was not possible through the parliamentary system. They would not have been possible without the people’s war. The people’s war brought awareness to the dalits, janajatis and other marginalized communities. We have to move ahead by safeguarding these past achievements. For that it is important that new Constituent Assembly polls be held at the earliest. This is not a traditional parliamentary course. We should all understand that all these successes were primarily achieved on the back of the people’s war. But Chairman Dahal has said in his political document that if the peaceful path fails, there would once again be an armed struggle. It is common rule of development of any society. If somebody obstructs the natural pace of development, there is bound to be an explosion. But that is not our current focus. Our current focus is on building peaceful and democratic Nepal, saving past achievements and making Nepali people free. Ahead of the general convention, Maoist leaders assured the people that there would be no factionalism. But clear rifts have been witnessed starting with the selection process for general convention hall. Unity and struggle are parts of a dialectical process. The new political document clearly says that unity and struggle are the characteristic features of our party, which will establish a new basis for unity. I genuinely believe the general convention will take party unity to new heights by synthesizing disparate strands. Since chairman Dahal’s political document and leadership have already been endorsed before the general convention, why undergo all the hassle of such a big undertaking? Yes, we have finalized our political document, but we can still incorporate suggestions from the floor. On the issue of leadership, it is not something that can be settled overnight. The issue has long been under discussion. I believe the team from the people’s war will be even more united after the national congress. The unity between Comrade Prachanda and myself will also reach new heights after the general convention. While you emphasize unity, the Dahal faction has been asking you to engage in self-criticism for the Dhobighat alliance, which played an instrumental role in the party’s split. This is a rumor that is being spread by those who are against unity in the Maoist party. They are trying to create the psychology of terror. But we will not be swayed by our detractors. After the convention, the party will be more united–organizationally and ideologically. The relation between Prachanda and Baburam will get warmer and the party will emerge to lead the country as a stronger political force. Chairman Dahal claimed that the Maoists will come up with a formula which NC and UML won’t be able to reject. What is that? There is no alternate to fresh CA election. We should hold it anyhow by May-end. UML and NC are agenda-less. People have boycotted them as anti-federalists. So, they are frightened to go to fresh election. Nonetheless, we will try to take NC and UML into confidence and come up with a consensus government as soon as possible. We will float our new proposal immediately after the national congress. Is it true that the party is mulling the option of new government under the leadership of an ex-justice? We have already floated various options. But NC an UML are not ready to face election and are only harping about government change. Now we are devising a formula that the opposition parties won’t be able to reject. The previous options the Maoists have put forth have found no takers. How can you be sure the new proposal will be accepted? We will make such an offer this time that if the opposition parties reject it, their veil of democracy will be lifted. We are confident that our new formula will compel NC and UML to go for new election. Why can’t the option be disclosed now? There is right time for everything. The formula will be disclosed only after the general convention. There are many who believe that the Bhattarai faction is getting stronger in the party, while others claim that most representatives to the general convention are on the side of Chairman Dahal. What is the situation in reality? We want to end this whole debate which places Prachanda and me on opposite poles. This is not the time to talk about polarization. Only internal unity will take the party to new heights. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=49459 Classic Tech - an Internet service provider -- is introducing faster yet affordable Internet packages, targeting students, household users and small corporate houses at the Midas CAN Info-Tech. The company is introducing two new packages -- CT 45 and CT 211 -- at the event. In an interview with Republica, Pramesh Kharel, CEO of the company, talked about the company and the new packages it is offering. Excerpts:[break] What will Classic Tech offer to customers at the Midas CAN Info-Tech 2013? We are launching two new packages at the Info-Tech - optic fiber Internet named CT45 and CT 211 which is a wireless Internet package. Customers subscribing to CT 45 will get 15 GB data at 15 Mbps bandwidth at Rs 1,500 per month. Customers, however, will have to pay Rs 5,000 as installation fee. Similarly, customers subscribing to CT 211 package will get 20 GB data at the speed of 2 Mbps. The package will cost Rs 1,000 per month and Rs 3,500 as installation fee. If the customers finish the quota of 20 GB data, they will still get unlimited Internet at 128 Kbps speed. If the quota is not finished in a month, it will be automatically terminated. Besides these new packages, what will be the other offerings from Classic Tech? We have three other packages. We are providing 50 percent extra on these packages i.e. we have doubled the bandwidth at the same price. We currently have CT Broadband, which is a wireless Internet package service, and optic fiber Internet packages -- CT OptMax Diamond and CT OptMax Platinum. Customers subscribing to CT Broadband will get up to 512 Kbps bandwidth at Rs 1,000, while those subscribing to CT OptMax Diamond will get 512 Kbps at Rs 2,000 and CT OptMax Platinum will get 1 Mbps at Rs 5,499. However customers will have to pay additional amount as installation fee to enjoy this tariff. PHOTO: DIPESH SHRESTHA Are you satisfied with your subscriber base? We are very satisfied, as we have managed to get 10,000 customers in a short period of three years. This became possible because of our strong support system and availability of faster bandwidth at competitive price. As part of our market expansion drive, we are starting our service in Pokhara and Biratnagar within this year. What are the major challenges that ISPs in the country are facing? ISPs are still not provided license-based frequency which has been a major problem for us. Most of the time optical fibers are cut without prior notice during road expansion and various other activities. This inflicts huge loss on us. Besides, the government has failed to create favorable business doing environment in the country. If business doing condition improves, we can improve our service both in terms of quality and price. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=49112 Starting February 2, UCPN (Maoist) is holding its first general convention in 21 years in Hetauda. There is a lot of speculation surrounding the general convention with many questioning its relevance, as important ideological questions and leadership positions have already been settled before its commencement. Republica’s Kiran Pun and Biswas Baral talked to Barsha Man Pun, former Maoist Standing Committee member and currently the finance minister in Baburam Bhattarai government, to get more insight into the impending general convention and the likelihood of a breakthrough in the stalled political and constitutional process in the near future. [break] How is the general convention of a communist party different to those of other democratic parties? For any communist party, its general convention is important in two ways. First, to devise strategies to take the party forward in terms of ideology, politics and organization for the next five years. Second, to elect the leadership to carry out the first task. In other parties, there is less discussion on ideology and more focus on selection of new leadership, ours is the other way around. In the case of UCPN (Maoist), through the upcoming general convention we are trying to make sure there is competition in terms of ideology and organization leadership from the grassroots to the top level. But the party leadership has already been settled and so have the documents to be approved by the general convention. In this situation, what is the rationale for the general convention? The main questions have been settled, but discussions on them remain. There might be new opinions expressed from the floor during the general convention. These need to be incorporated. We have only hinted of a way forward. The general convention will add clarity to this road. And although the top leadership has been settled, other leadership positions are yet to be settled. If need be, there might even be election to settle certain issues and positions. What kind of an impact will the general convention have on the national political landscape? When we conducted our last general convention 21 years ago, the parliamentary system had just been established. We were in the House as the third largest party. But at that time, we didn’t have a full-fledged loktantra. Hence the party decided to mount its struggle, both through the street as well as the House. But we were not given due space. We then adopted the route of armed struggle, after which we again joined hands with traditional parliamentary forces to reach the current stage. That general convention 21 years ago brought about a sea change in the country. We are holding the seventh general convention at a time we are discussing important questions like federalism, the question of identity, ending of class, caste, geographical and gender based discrimination, and creation of new basis of national unity. We were able to bring about such radical transformation in Nepali state apparatus even as the third largest party 21 years ago. Now, as the largest party, the impact of our general convention in shaping the national politics, economy and society will be even greater. There is a belief that the Maoists have been biding their time and there could be a breakthrough on new government formation soon after the general convention. The likelihood of a breakthrough will depend on the mandate of the general convention, which is likely to be centered on institutionalizing the mandate of people’s war and Jana Andolan. Since there is no alternative to going to the people, the general convention will try to find the best course to reach this goal. We are confident that the general convention will give us a clear line and strong leadership to move forward on national politics. We will come up with one or the other solution at the end of the general convention. As things stand, what is the Maoist bottom line for government change? The main issue is coming to a breakthrough through consensus and preparation of a new constitution. Our first proposal is a package deal on government leadership, when the Maoist party will first lead the consensus government, clear the constitutional hurdles and make necessary appointments. Then, there will be a Nepali Congress-led government to conduct polls. Second, we propose going into new polls under third-candidate leadership. Third, the dissolved CA can be restored and a constitution promulgated on the basis of the issues that have already been settled. We are ready to take up any one of these three options. Hasn’t Nepali politics left the agenda of CA revival far behind? New CA election is undoubtedly the best way forward. Failing that, the old CA can be restored and a constitution be issued based on past agreements. There was reportedly an agreement to conduct polls under NC leadership, which later fell apart. What happened? Yes, there was a package deal to clear the way for Congress leadership, but the party could not convince us that it was capable of conducting polls on time. It could not assure us of its ability to clear constitutional hurdles, form transitional justice mechanisms and own up past agreements. Thus, in order to achieve these goals, we asked the opposition parties to join the current government for time being, after which the country could go for election under Congress leadership. Such a move from the opposition would create an atmosphere of trust. Otherwise, if the new government backtracks on transitional justice mechanisms and on owning up past agreements, election might again be postponed. What is the guarantee that the impasse witnessed between 1950 and 1960 won’t be repeated? How can we trust the opposition parties when they aren’t willing to express trust in us by joining the government even for a short time? If the opposition joins the government, 15 days should be enough to clear the constitutional hurdles and fill up constitutional bodies. You talked about the option of third-party candidate for government leadership. Have you discussed this option with opposition parties? Yes, the option of government leadership by a small party or independent candidate is being discussed with the opposition. A lot will depend on the kind of mandate we get from the general convention. I believe once Nepali Congress and CPN-UML put forth their views before the people on the street, they will be more amenable to agreements on the table. Since both the ruling and opposition parties have discussed each other’s conditions among themselves, it is time to take these arguments to the people. For our part, we will try to clarify why there was no constitution, no election, and what our conditions are for government change. They will offer their own views. This will hopefully create common ground for discussions. But the opposition needs to understand that in a democracy a legitimately elected government cannot be overthrown from the streets. Street can be used only to build pressure and air one’s position. Besides, the opposition has no ground to agitate at a time we have been repeatedly asking them to come to the table. With its seventh general convention, has the evolution of UPCN (Maoist) from a cadre-based to a mass-based party started? Traditionally, communist parties are purely cadre-based, while the bourgeois parties are purely mass-based. Our goal is to become a mass-based-cadre-party. Neither can a purely mass-based party lead the momentous changes in Nepal in recent times, nor can a completely cadre-based party lead the people. Thus we want to be a cadre-based party that also enjoys broad support among the masses. There has been criticism from various quarters about the extortionist donation drive of UCPN (Maoist) on the eve of the general convention. How do you respond? Our focus is to collect most of the needed funds through our members and well-wishers. We will take Rs. 5,000 each from representatives/observers at the convention, which will amount to Rs 1 million. We collect money from even the lowest rung party cadre. During general conventions, each party member contributes to the best of his or her ability. Thus, donations are only our fourth option. We have also learned a lot form the controversy surrounding the donation drive of the Baidya-led Maoist party ahead of its own general convention. Also, we have found that some people are spreading rumors of forced donation so that they are not bothered for donation later. Ahead of the general convention, Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been talking about bringing about a ‘democratic revolution’ while abandoning the old course of ‘new democratic revolution’. Can you explain what this means for the layman? In Europe, there was an industrial, capitalistic revolution against feudalism. But after the development of hegemonic forces, the capitalist class abandoned its revolutionary path. They started working in concert with the feudal forces. Then, the laborers had to unite against the feudalists. Since this was a new development, it was termed a ‘new democratic revolution’ by Mao. In Nepal’s context, the parties of laborers and victimized and oppressed people must complete this revolution by getting people’s mandate in a peaceful manner. This is what we have called ‘democratic revolution,’ aimed at solving the questions of nationalism, democracy and people’s war. Some people have interpreted the Maoists’ new way forward as sidelining of the old cadres who took part in the armed struggle, while embracing those likely to do well in parliamentary politics. Yesterday, those who knew how to fight were at the forefront of the revolution. Today, the challenge is to teach them to win people’s hearts and minds. This is important as the party aims to complete the revolution through peaceful means. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=49132 Wang Quan is the executive director of the Tourist Association of Shaanxi Province in China. He is also the general manager of Xi´an Everbright International Travel Service based in Xi´an, China. Wang recently led a delegation to Nepal and met with government officials and tourism entrepreneurs. In an interview with Republica´s Purna Basnet in Xi´an, China, he talked about tourism and investment potential of Nepal. Excerpts:[break] What was the specific purpose of your recent visit to Nepal? Xi´an Everbright International Travel Service serves over 100,000 tourists from around the world every year. We send over 20,000 Chinese tourists to different countries and bring in around 80,000 foreign tourists to China every year. South Korea is one of the biggest markets for us from where around 40,000 tourists came to China last year. Although Nepal holds great tourism potential, not many are visiting the country. In my opinion, this is because of visa problem. At the same time, Chinese travel agencies are also not showing keen interest in promoting Nepal as a tourist destination because of lack of information. Now we would like to promote Nepal by sending as many tourists as possible. So, I visited Nepal for the first time in my two-decade-long career as a tourism entrepreneur. What are major attractions for Chinese tourists in Nepal? I was very much impressed by Nepal´s natural beauty and climate. I think friendly nature of Nepalis will also play a key role in attracting Chinese tourists. I believe many Chinese Buddhists from Xi´an would want to visit Lumbini -- the birthplace of Buddha, once in their lifetime. This is because people of Xi´an, China´s main Buddhist center, have deep respect for Buddhism. Other attractions include snow-clad mountains, diverse ethnic groups and blend of different cultures. Besides, Nepal´s handicraft products are very famous in China. Nepal can earn lots of foreign currency if it can develop this sector. What are major challenges that Nepal needs to overcome to promote tourism? Nepal government should provide adequate security to travelers. Good arrangement of transport facilities, hotels and restaurants are a must to give boost to tourism industry. Chinese tourists expect good service and they don´t mind paying the cost for those privileges. In this regard, Nepal must focus on improving its transport infrastructure and build hotels and restaurants of better quality. Besides, Nepal also lacks sufficient Chinese-speaking tour guides and tourist information centers with Chinese-speaking personnel. What should Nepal do to promote tourism? If Nepal wants to develop Lumbini as an international tourist destination, it has to first launch publicity campaigns in countries where Buddhism is practiced. Secondly, Nepal has to develop its transport infrastructure and build more hotels and restaurants. Thirdly, Nepal needs to protect its natural beauty. In addition, the government should allow selected travel and tour companies that are capable to work. How is your company promoting Nepal in China? Our plan is to promote Nepal as much as we can in China. That is why we launched a CD on Nepal in late 2012. The CD provides an insight into Nepali culture and natural beauty to travelers interested in visiting Nepal. To promote Nepal, we are also planning to send more Chinese TV journalists to Nepal. In my opinion, tourism is a conduit through which Chinese investment can flow into Nepal, as people who visit the country will get firsthand knowledge of the government´s policy and priorities. Currently, Chinese people are looking for foreign investment opportunities and if they think Nepal has the potential to give good returns, they would be happy in making investment. In this regard, we are ready to work with the Nepal government to bring in more Chinese tourists and investment. What challenges are you facing while promoting Nepal in China? It is very difficult for Chinese tourists to visit Nepal. Currently, direct flights to Nepal are available from only three locations in mainland China - Guangzhou, Kunming and Lhasa. Another problem is visa. China is a big country but Nepali visas are issued from only three cities - Beijing, Shanghai and Lhasa. Although Nepal provides on-arrival visa facility for Chinese tourists, the Chinese government doesn´t allow its citizens to travel without visa to any country. So if Nepal can establish passport collection centers in different Chinese cities, including Xi´an, more Chinese tourists would be interested in traveling to Nepal. I also urge the concerned bodies to start direct flight between Kathmandu and Xi´an. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=48446 The newly-formed CPN-Maoist party has recently convened its seventh general convention which decided on ´people´s revolt´ as the party´s political line. The convention also elected a 51-member central committee under the chairmanship of Mohan Baidya. Republica´s Kiran Pun spoke with Baidya. Excerpts:[break] You have been elected party head again after 28 years. How do you feel --is there something new or difference, as you have been elected both times during critical periods? I was elected a central committee member at four general conventions and I was elected party general secretary at the fifth national congress in 2041. So, I no longer feel any desire for assuming the main leadership post. I now see very high hills of challenge, challenge for the people and the country. The question is how to move forward facing these negative and positive challenges. I am now in such a place where both renown as a revolutionary as well ill fame are possible. And I remember a quote from Comrade Mao, that people can fall very far down after reaching very high. I can go on facing the challenges if I get the help of party cadres and the people. The question is how can I accommodate the line of the masses and the interests of the people. Mohan Baidya (Photo: Chandra Shekar Karki) Although you were elected both times in very critical circumstances do you feel any difference between the two occasions? I have always been for the idealist way of revolution. I thought Prachand was also for this. I had thought that I would not again assume the main leadership of the party after the arrival of Prachand in the party´s main leadership. I came into the main leadership unexpectedly. But this was natural, as such things can happen if necessary. Is it easier to be a leader or to make a leader? Both are complex. In the sense that you made Prachand the main leader... It is a very difficult thing to understand human beings. Prachand was not such a person and how he has changed. We do not know how human beings change. It is a very difficult thing. You also mentioned that it was a mistake to hand over leadership to Prachand. Why? I left the leadership over the Sector scandal. Dahal also made a mistake. The incident happened in 2043 Bikram Era but I left in 2046. Comrades raised questions in 2046 asking whose mistake it was. I would just say that it was not my personal mistake and it was a mistake to leave the leadership over this scandal. UCPN (Maoist) leaders say that there is in the main no difference between the two Maoist parties. After the general convention, would you say there are differences? There are various differences. We follow the new democratic revolution but they have left that path. We talk about national sovereignty but they have abandoned it. We have been saying the constitution should assure the rights of women, dalits and ethnic groups. But they have abandoned that also. UCPN (Maoist) is converting itself into a party of the elite classes but we are trying to make ours a party of the proletariat. These are the main differences. You can see it in the political documents. This is the theoretical aspect, but how would the common people understand these things? New democratic revolution is our political line. We will decide how to move in practice. The upcoming party central committee meeting will decide on concrete moves. National sovereignty and the issues of the livelihood of the people will be raised forcefully. We will bring protest programs to pressure to the current Bhattarai government to step down. We will again rise the issue of a roundtable assembly to form a constitution and also break the deadlock. We should wait for the CC meeting for concrete programs. When can we see your CC take full shape? We will try to give it full shape at the upcoming CC meeting. What will be the nature of the struggle? Immediately, we will take up just the programs of people´s struggle. It is said that there is confusion in the party´s political line over people´s revolt on the foundations of people´s war? Can you make that clear? We have various experiences of people´s war. We formed a parallel government. We formed an army. And awareness developed among the dalits, women and ethnic communities. We have experience of the ´win´ and ´loss´ of people´s war. We will launch revolt on this foundation. The main point is we cannot move ahead ignoring our historical experience. We have 10 years of experience and we will use it. Is there any confusion? No. It is all clear. We should understand that there are two accusations against us. First, some people are saying they pressuring us to take up arms immediately so that it will be easy to suppress us. Secondly, some ask what would be the point of separating from Prachand and Baburam Bhattarai if our party could not take up arms. Neither are our concerns. We will move ahead taking up the people´s agendas with struggle. Are you going to revive people´s government, people´s courts and army? We are not going to revive them. The old style is not suitable. We will move in accordance with new bases and a new way. So, you will go for something new ? It will be determined by circumstances. Whether CA elections will take place is debatable. If they are held, will your party participate? There is no possibility of CA elections. But if election are held? We can participate or boycott. We will think at the time depending on what the elections will be like. Now, we have been talking of a roundtable assembly for forming a government and also finding a solution to the constitutional issue also. Is there possibility of CA revival? No. What are the reasons for the success of people´s revolt on the foundation of people´s war? It is clear that if we go taking up the agendas and achievements of people´s war things will go in a positive fashion. At the convention, the cadres raised the question with you --what is the basis for believing that you would not become another Prachand or Bhattarai if you get power. How can you convince people? Such questions are natural. Comrades have been asking in place after place what is the guarantee that we would not deviate. In the past we develop the tendency of individualism in the party. But now we are giving priority to developing collective leadership. Secondly, we will develop political heirs in the party. It is a natural phenomena in political parties to have some ups and downs. Where individualism is high there is danger. If collective leadership develops heirs, sacking those who deviate will be a smooth process. Our attention will be to develop collective leadership. We have also expressed commitments. But we should prepare the next generation leadership. How would you develop the heirs? We mean to prepare a capable new generation. We have both ´red´ and ´expert´. We will prepare such a generation to step in if the leadership makes mistakes. This is something complex in a communist movement. But we will try to develop such a generation. Are such leadership heirs possible? Why not? If we had taken such comrades into the CC, they would have crossed 200 members. We have a good team. What if they also turn into Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Babauram Bhattarai? Talking about myself, I had taken Dahal and Bhattarai as my heirs. But the opposite happened. It is a complex thing understanding people. It is a complex matter evaluating a man. People change quickly. The cadres also raised questions about handover of property to the party. We will decide whether to hand over party to the party or go for a cooperative system. We will decide soon. Some cadres asked why the CC did not bring in new faces, saying the same old faces cannot uphold the new spirit. Generally, communists go for a three in one concept, or three generations. Our CC has all three generations. But we have not been able to bring in new comrades, that is true. We will solve this as soon as possible. We will accommodate them in various central departments. You have been projecting yourselves at mass meetings as an alternative force and stating that your party is going to led the country. How are you going to go about doing that? Our bases are the issues of the people and national sovereignty. We are also raising the issue of the rights of women, dalits and ethnic peoples. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=48441 Shiva Gaule, chairman of the Federation of Nepali Journalists headed a four-member fact-finding mission to study the matter in Dailekh. Republica talked to Gaule. Excerpts:[break] You recently returned from Dailekh. What did you find there? Journalists are working under immense psychological pressure from the authorities. Even security officials concede that they can´t provide security when journalists are outside the district headquarters. It is only after the Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday that journalists in the district heaved a sigh of relief. What conditions have the FNJ set for concluding the protests? We have been demanding that all those involved in Dekendra´s murder must be brought to book. Let the law take its course. There shouldn´t be any interference. We are ready to accept the court´s verdict. The prime minister and Maoists have been arguing that cases like Dekendra´s murder are to be dealt with through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and that journalist bodies including FNJ have taken up the issue at a wrong time. What do you say? Criminal laws can´t be deactivated under the pretext of handing over such cases to the TRC which hasn´t even seen the light of the day. Being indifferent to cases of serious human rights violations would be against the interim constitution and the Comprehensive Peace Accord. The ruling leaders needn´t teach journalists about their duty. Journalists are equally responsible and sincere about concluding the peace process. Other journalists have also been murdered. What will be the impact of the ongoing struggle of journalists on those cases? At least 34 journalists were killed and four others have been disappeared. Once we succeed in bringing those accused of Thapa´s murder to book, it will pave the way for bringing others involved in several other journalists´ murders and disappearances to book. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=48339 Peter Tropper is the chief investment officer, private equity funds, at the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group. He oversees US$2-billion fund in South Asia for the IFC. He is currently in Nepal to launch Business Oxygen (BO2), first small and medium enterprises venture fund, in which IFC has invested $7 million. Republica caught up with him on Tuesday to discuss various aspects of the venture fund and the situation of small and medium enterprises sector in Nepal. Excerpts: [break] How did Nepal qualify for the venture fund project? We were looking for countries that did not have a well-developed financial sector, especially those where equity market for small businesses was not available. Since nobody was providing this sort of support to small businesses, we stepped in. What will be IFC´s role in the venture fund? One is to train the fund managers. We will bring our experience from overseas and put it here so that these guys know what is going on. It is also very important to take these people to other countries where venture funds are being operated in a similar environment. Second is to provide technical assistance to people who have received the venture fund´s support. What´s your stake in the venture fund? It´s a $14-million fund and we´ve put in $7 million. So we are looking for other investors to put in $7 million in the fund. Who will mobilize the remaining $7 million? It´s the job of Business Oxygen, the fund manager. We want lots of individuals and companies here in Nepal to contribute to this fund. You´ve entered Nepal at a time when the investment climate is not that great. How optimistic are you about the venture? IFC works in countries all over the world with all sorts of political situation. This is not new to us. What is important is that small businesses thrive regardless of what´s going around them. The politics and the government do not matter much to them because they are focused on their own businesses. And on top of that they need money to grow. So investments in SMEs are really good investment. So you´re confident about taking back your investment with returns. Oh sure. That´s what we do. Our job is to promote the private sector. And the only way to promote the private sector is by investing in companies that are successful. Yes, sometimes we make mistakes, but not very often. You manage a $2 billion fund at IFC. Are any more similar projects in pipeline for Nepal? No. Not for now. We are going to put all our efforts into this one. And I´m hoping that this venture becomes successful, so that others can follow. So our priority here is not to promote one particular company (Business Oxygen) but to get the private sector going. How do you evaluate SME sector here? Over 90 percent of businesses in Nepal are SMEs. If you go to places like the US, 90 percent of businesses are big ones. It´s just the opposite here and from this perspective this is a deal flow for us. That means most of the companies operating in Nepal are eligible for the venture fund´s investment. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=48052 Advocacy Forum-Nepal, which has been providing legal assistance to the victims of human rights violations since its establishment, had offered to take the case of two victims of tortures involving Colonel Lama to the UK. Republica caught up with Chairperson of Advocacy Forum Mandira Sharma to learn about the case in detail. Excerpts: [break] How did this case reach the UK? As you know, we have been providing legal assistance to the victims of human rights violations right since the Maoist conflict, we have been also been providing legal assistance in this particular case since 2005. While the government and political parties have termed the arrest of Colonel Lama a breach of sovereign jurisdiction, human rights community has welcomed it. First of all, we need to understand that the concept of human rights is universal. Nepal has been a party to several human rights instruments and treaties and has accepted in principle that any government in the world can punish those guilty of serious human rights violations. As a party to the UN Convention against Torture, any victim of torture in Nepal can appeal in another country, which is also a party to this convention, for legal treatment if the victim is denied justice in his home country. In such a case, the country concerned has to either prosecute or extradite the perpetrator of torture if found in its soil. Colonel Lama´s case is similar. Political parties have said that the move of UK government could derail the ongoing peace process. What do you say on this? This is a deliberate attempt to spread rumor. Where in the world has peace process derailed just because victims of conflicts are provided justice? The issues of providing justice to conflict victims, ending impunity, strengthening the rule of law and establishing transitional justice mechanisms are components of the peace process. But the government has not carried out investigation into any of these incidents of human rights violations that took place during the Maoist conflict. Not even a single perpetrator of serious human rights violation has been booked even six years after the start of the peace process. Instead, the government has been repealing cases and giving protection to convicted criminals. The government has grossly ignored the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission and other international human rights organizations. This situation has forced victims to look for alternative ways to seek justice. This will never derail the peace process, but will help strengthen it. Don´t you think that those found guilty in such cases can be prosecuted in Nepal itself? So far, this has not happened. Nepal should learn a lesson from this incident. There are thousands of similar cases. Nepal government has to immediately start the process of prosecuting those found guilty of serious human rights violations. But the proposed draft ordinance on Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which has reached the President´s Office, is faulty. Since this is not compatible with international standards, such TRC should not be formed. Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai himself had hijacked the TRC bills that were drafted by the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction. The two separate bills on TRC proposed by the ministry were withdrawn and the prime minister had introduced faulty ordinances, which propose general amnesty even to those involved in serious human rights violations. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=47912 Sushila (25) and Sudha (23) have been at the vanguard of the Occupy Baluwatar movement since its inception 13 days ago. They are two of the three daughters of Chhori Maiya Maharjan, who has been missing since Feb. 28, 2012. In the past 10 months, Sushila and Sudha have knocked every door for justice, including that of the prime minister. But no headway has been made in locating their missing mother. Biswas Baral caught up with the two on the sidelines of Occupy Baluwatar (Day 12) to get a sense of what these women have had to go through since their mother went missing, and their expectations from the ongoing Occupy movement. [break] First of all, what are the two of you doing at the moment? Do you study? Both of us have completed our graduation. We would like to start our masters. But since our mother went missing 10 months ago, we have not been able to give continuity to our studies. In the 10 months, what are the important steps you have taken to locate your mother? The evening our mother went missing, we lodged a complaint with the police. The next day, we filed a written complaint at Hanumandhoka. But nothing happened. For the first 11 days, the police sent us on a goose chase: an inspector would say that a particular DSP was looking into the case, when we went to that DSP he informed us that it was another DSP who was handling it. But when pressure from our relatives started to increase, the Crime Division of Nepal Police took up the case. On the 15th day, we met Home Minister Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar, who called up the IGP right in front of us, and asked him to apprehend the chief suspect in our mother’s disappearance. Even so, nothing happened. We later learned that the police was trying to hush up investigations due to political pressure. Even the police officials who had earlier accepted that Nikki Singh was the person responsible for the disappearance of our mother later denied having said so. PHOTO: KESHAB THOKER As we understand it, the case is being hushed up because of Singh’s connection with the home minister. In the meantime, we have held various sit-ins, signature campaigns and protests asking for justice. We even met the prime minister, who assured that there would be a breakthrough within three days. But nothing came of it. We then held a relay hunger strike, which prompted the government to put together an investigation team under a joint secretary at the home ministry. It’s been five months since, and the investigation team is yet to make its findings public. Whenever we inquire, they say they are following up, but nothing concrete comes out. You have been a part of the Occupy Baluwatar campaign for the last 12 days. Has it in any way made a difference to your case? We are more positive about a favorable outcome now that we have joined hands with other victims who are also waiting for justice. The movement has raised our hope that we will soon find our mother. Due to the pressure from the Occupy Baluwatar movement, the prime minister himself has asked the IGP to inquire about investigations into the disappearance of our mother. Acting on our written complaint, the court has directed the police to find out the mobile set from which we were sent a text message on the night of our mother’s disappearance, implying that our mother was in Manakamana on the day. This should help shed light on the case. Do you have any specific demand from the government? Since the day our mother went missing, our only demand has been that we should know what happened to our mother, to find out where she is. Once we meet our mother, everything else will be clear. Our sole demand is that wherever she is, she should be returned to us. You two have had to deal with Nepal’s justice delivery system for the past 10 months. How effective is it? On the basis of what we have had to go through, we have come to the conclusion that only those with ‘connections’ have the right to enjoy life. For the rest, their pain and suffering seem to hold no meaning. We visited many NGOs/INGOs, but all of them said they could offer us no more than moral support. We believe that commoners in this country are not even counted as human beings. Even during legal proceedings, we were not allowed inside the court. There were hundreds of police personnel deployed to stop us. But all those connected with the defense side were allowed easy access. You said you are more hopeful that you will find your mother now. What makes you more hopeful? Since joining Occupy Baluwatar, we have learned that there is vast difference between a single voice and a collective voice. We have received a great deal of social, moral and individual support, which has strengthened our case. Both of you said that your studies have been interrupted for the last 10 months. What are your future plans? Look, our mother is our life. Without her, it is very difficult to think about the next step in our lives. This mental torture we have had to endure for the last 10 months will end only when we get to see our mother again. Only then will our future course be clear. Right now, finding our mother is our one and only focus. You said the prime minister has personally reviewed your case. Has he given you any specific timeline? He said he would get to the heart of the issue by 15 days, of which 12 have already passed (on Tuesday). Let’s see what happens in the next three days. He has said that investigations into the case will be made public within the timeline and possible lapses in the case investigated. Is there anything that you would like to get across to the general public? We all know that the world is a selfish place. But since what happened to us can happen to anyone, we would like to call on the general public to understand our pain and help us get justice. I honestly believe that if the public supports our cause, not only will we get to the bottom of this case but we as a society will also have made big strides towards combating violence against women. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=47550 Nepali Congress General Secretary Krishna Prasad Sitaula has been an active interlocutor between the ruling and opposition parties in ongoing negotiations. In the same role, Situala helped bring the Maoists into mainstream politics, starting with the historic 12-point Delhi accord. Kosh Raj Koirala and Biswas Baral sat down with the veteran Congress leader to better understand the prolonged impasse and ongoing talks. [break] What in your view is the major obstacle for a breakthrough in current talks? At the root of the current impasse is the atmosphere of mistrust between the ruling and opposition parties that originated with the CA’s dissolution on May 27 and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s unilateral announcement of new CA polls. The proposal for new CA polls should at least have been discussed with Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. Since, there is a fear among opposition forces that the ruling coalition wants to capture the whole state power. Bhattarai announced new polls knowing fully well CA polls was no ordinary election and they could only be held through broad political consensus. PHOTO: KESHAB THOKER Apparently, political parties were near a breakthrough in current negotiations before prime minister Bhattarai backtracked. Was that the case? Even Bhattarai had in the past said that there is no alternative to consensus government. In fact, there was an understanding between all parties that new polls should be held by April/May. There were agreements on 240 electoral constituencies and reduction in PR seats. The opposition parties had proposed that Bhattarai government should clear constitutional hurdles on the basis of agreement among parties. We had agreed that there would be a package deal on clearing the political impasse and constitutional hurdles. Instead of insisting that the ruling coalition be punished for its unilateral decision on polls, the opposition allowed it this most honorable exit. If the government had agreed to this proposal, there would have been a consensus government in place a month ago. Where did things go wrong then? At the outset, prime minister Bhattarai was positive on this option. Both he as well as Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal had hailed it as a very positive suggestion. But only days later, Bhattarai sent a message through his emissaries that since the parties were so close on important issues, why wouldn’t the opposition join his government for a few days? How do you interpret Bhattarai’s insistence that the opposition join the ruling coalition, even if for just a few days? Why should we join the government for such a short period? There should be some logic. Like I said , we have allowed Bhattarai a graceful exit. Why doesn’t he accept it? Prime Minister Bhattarai has been saying that since the opposition has been treating him as an ‘untouchable’, he has no incentive to reach out to them as well. If we really wanted to go ahead by boycotting him, why would we ask him to implement a consensus agreement? In fact, it is the duty of the prime minister, who is responsible for the current state of political and constitutional vacuum, to take the initiative to establish political consensus. Now that the opposition parties have managed to create an atmosphere of consensus, why doesn’t he take the initiative to implement our earlier agreement? The ruling coalition believes there will be no CA polls under Nepali Congress leadership. Is Congress really against election? This is a blatant lie. Among all the political parties, Nepali Congress is the most committed to periodic elections. Let us look at historical facts. Why couldn’t elections be held between 1950 and 1955? Because a Congress-led government could not be formed during the period. But as soon as there was NC-led government under Subarna Sumsher, polls were held. After the 1990 revolution, there was election under the leadership of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai. In 1994, a full-strength NC-led government decided to go for mid-term polls, where it lost its stature as the biggest party. The 2000 election was held under Girija Prasad Koirala, as were CA polls in 2008. Nepali Congress believes periodic elections are the soul of democracy. Thus, more than who will win the next CA polls, NC is more worried about if there will be any election at all. Let us not forget, nearly five years have elapsed since the last polls. If there is no election now, democracy will be under threat. It is the historical duty of Congress to safeguard democracy. Do you believe that the ruling coalition is against new polls instead? Yes, post-split, the Maoists must know their electoral prospects are dim. They must also feel that since it was UCPN (Maoist) leadership which announced CA polls, elections should be held under the same party. I don’t think Baburam Bhattarai is serious when he accuses Congress of not wanting to hold elections. This is only an excuse to cling to power. If there is no broad-based agreement by January 9, the chances of CA polls by May will be significantly reduced. How have you seen the role of the Madhesi parties in the ruling coalition? I don’t want to comment on the Madhesi parties beyond saying that they want to prolong their tenure in government. I believe the bulk of the responsibility for breakthrough rests with the party with government leadership. Of late, PM Bhattarai has been talking up the option of a third-party, neutral candidate. Will this be acceptable to Congress? If there is third-person leadership, the state of chaos witnessed in Nepal between 1950 and 1955 will be repeated. At a time a government led by the biggest party in the country has failed to hold election, how can a neutral candidate, without any public mandate, succeed? That will only complicate the situation. You say that there should be broad agreement between the parties. The ruling coalition has also been saying that there should be a package deal. How are the two sets of proposals different? Look, let me say this again, all issues have already been settled. The only hindrance to a breakthrough at this point in time is the refusal of Baburam Bhattarai to make way. You see, there are no differences on the minimal agreement needed for May polls. This includes removing constitutional hurdles, adequately staffing the Election Commission, declaration of electoral day and establishment of consensus government to achieve these goals. There is also the argument that if the country goes for new polls without institutionalizing past achievements, post 2006 achievements would be under risk. The interim constitution clearly provisions for a constitution of a federal, democratic republic. The new CA cannot override this principle. The current practice of accusing someone of being anti-federalist, I believe, is a part of electoral politics. No party at present is anti-federalist. What about the demand that past agreements be tabulated before agreement on new polls? This goes without saying. The work carried out by the old CA will serve as the property of the new CA. Is consensus government under Congress leadership the only way out at present? That is the need of the hour. There is no question of government leadership from among the ruling coalition. We believe the ruling coalition must accept the responsibility for the one-sided decision on May 27. That leaves Congress and UML. Since UML has already made an institutional decision to back Congress, Congress leadership becomes natural. Another thing is that Congress settled its prime ministerial candidate after UML and Maoists asked us to do so, to show them that we were serious. To put forth new preconditions now is not right. A great deal has been made of the apparent differences between Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and vice chairman Baburam Bhattarai over new government formation. What do you make of it? In my discussions with the two leaders, both had accepted the proposal that the current government would clear the legal and constitutional hurdles, after which it would make way for NC-led government. But two days later, Bhattarai went back on his words, and asked Congress to join his government instead. This shows that at the heart of the current crisis is Baburam Bhattarai’s bal hath (childish stubbornness). How has the prime minister been stubborn? Let us compare Baburam Bhattarai and Pushpa Kamal Dahal. I have known both for a long time. Both come across as highly ambitious, more than is necessary at times. But in today’s context, I believe Baburam Bhattarai has become addicted to power. At least, Dahal had resigned on moral grounds over the disagreement over the appointment of Army chief in 2009. But even after Bhattarai made an enormous blunder by unilaterally announcing election on May 27, he seems not to have realized his folly yet. This, I believe, is a historical failure of Baburam Bhattarai. Even though I am his political adversary, I would like to remind Bhattarai that any politician who leaves behind value-based politics in his quest for power will sooner or later fall down, so hard he will never be able to stand up again. But there is still time for Bhattarai. He should not fail to understand the need of time and situation. He could still add a feather to his cap by taking personal responsibility for the formation of consensus government. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=47175 UCPN (Maoist) Vice-Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha wears many hats these days. He is a member of the party’s four-man team negotiating with opposition forces to break the prolonged logjam. As Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, he has come to be noted for his initiatives to strictly implement the diplomatic code of conduct governing high-level meetings between government representatives and foreign dignitaries, as well as for his vocal disagreements on foreign policy matters with the rest of the Bhattarai Cabinet. Republica’s Kosh Raj Koirala and Mahabir Paudyal caught up with Shrestha to discuss a range of issues, including the President’s current India visit. [break] You are a member of the four-man Maoist team negotiating with opposition forces. What solution do you propose to end the current crisis? First, it is vital to take transitional politics to its meaningful end. This is the historical responsibility of political forces. At present, the only way of doing this is through new CA polls by May 29, 2013. But for this we need to be able to come to an understanding on national consensus government, make arrangements for new polls and create the bases for drafting new statute through new CA. We need to forge consensus toward this end in the next few days. PHOTO: DIPESH SHRESTHA The PM has been insisting opposition forces join the current government for a short period before leadership can be handed over to Nepali Congress. But opposition forces have made PM’s resignation a precondition. In this situation, how will the impasse end? Our first priority is to transform current government into national consensus government and allow it to conduct polls. Thus if the opposition forces, mainly NC and UML, join this government, so much the better. The best bet would be to let this government decide on issues related to new polls before NC takes over the reins. This would be constitutionally right and relatively easy. But our bottom line is ensuring new CA polls. So we are open to other options if there is guarantee of new statue by new CA. If this is guaranteed, government leadership should not be an obstacle. Of late party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal seems flexible on new government even while the PM seems adamant in his stand. This seems to be creating a rift between the PM and the chairman. Is that the case? We have differences in the party on some political matters and how we should move ahead. We should acknowledge such differences and take it naturally. But our party is firm in its stand that the current government should be allowed to hold polls and the opposition forces should join it. So there is no difference between party line and PM’s stand. But the party does not consider that only the current government can hold polls. I do not see much difference between the party chairman and the PM. Nor has the PM put the chairman into a difficult situation. Is it not true that PM’s rigid stand has put the chairman in a difficult spot? The chairman has been acting in line with the party’s official stand. So there is no reason why there should be any rift between the PM and the chairman. Even after the party’s split earlier in the year, UCPN (Maoist) is still believed to be faction-ridden, divided among one faction headed by you, one by chairman Dahal and one by PM Bhattarai. There is no denying that there are differences among us in terms of ideology. So naturally there are different viewpoints on several issues between myself, the PM and the chairman. But regarding the key political roadmap and action plan, we have no differences at all. To tell you the truth, at no other time has there been such strong unity among us on key political issues. But this is not to say we do not have differences on other issues. The differences were there before, they are there now and some differences will remain even in the future. But we are against factionalism of any kind. Factionalism will be inimical to consolidating unity. There were also speculations that you even thought of quitting owing to differences in the cabinet. As you may know, party decision is greater than individual decision in the party system. Thus unless the party endorsed my resignation, it would hold no meaning. The party would not allow me to resign and I abided by the party decision. Let us change topic. You have been working toward strict diplomatic code of conduct when it comes to meetings between foreign visitors and diplomatic heads and key political actors and government ministers. How effective has it been? I have found that the code of conduct have been well observed by concerned stakeholders. Yet it is also true that leaders in responsible portfolios do not seem to have taken the issue seriously. The main political leaders, former prime ministers and other ministers do not seem to have understood the significance of observing code of conduct while meeting foreign dignitaries. Thus I have been calling on them to be serious about maintaining diplomatic norms. It has come to the light that your strict stand on maintaining protocols has angered the President and the US Ambassador to Nepal. I spoke to the President in private before I made the issue public. I reminded him that diplomatic code of conduct should be strictly followed. I told him it is vital for the head of the state to observe the protocols. And I requested him to go through foreign ministry’s channels if he wishes to confer with foreign dignitaries. He had taken my advice in good spirit. But there have been some problems. If he had taken my suggestion seriously as he had promised, perhaps I would not have made the issue public. I reminded him of the gravity of the issue once again. And this time around, he has assured me that he is really serious about foreign ministry’s concerns. As regards the US Ambassador, he has confided to me that he is really appreciative of the foreign ministry’s stand on maintaining protocols. So I don’t think I have disappointed the ambassador either. There is also an allegation that you did not play a constructive role in arranging for the PM’s visit to China. This is completely untrue. As much as I tried to make Chinese PM’s visit to Nepal possible, I have also tried to arrange for Nepali PM’s visit to China. I have taken this initiative not only through formal channels and diplomatic correspondence with Chinese government, I have done all that a foreign minister could do to make our PM’s visit to China possible. It looks like you oppose virtually every agreement that the PM endorses. Is that the case? We have had differences on many issues which have become public. There is nothing to hide about it. I object to any decisions that can have long term repercussions on national interest. I have been telling the party and the prime minister that I am not going to stay a spectator to policies that have serious consequences on national issues. It is said that your approach to dealing with India is different to that of the PM. Regarding India, my position is clear. India is our neighbor and we should maintain good diplomatic relations with it. Anti-Indian stand can never be the foundation of our foreign policy. Having said this, I also believe Nepalis should be able to decide on issues of national importance themselves. And that any deals with India should keep national interests and Nepali people at the center. My concern is that there should be no external interference in Nepali’s right to self-determination and independence. Thus there may have been some differences between the PM and myself on this. But Nepalis have fought for decades and sacrificed thousands of lives for the sake of national independence and integrity. We cannot compromise on this at any cost. You were opposed to the BIPPA treaty and have expressed your opposition to the proposed modernization of Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA) immigration system by India. Where do you disagree with the PM in this? I have spoken a lot about my reservations about BIPPA. In fact, I was opposed to it even at the time of signing of the agreement in Delhi. In TIA’s case, there is no denying that our immigration system needs to be urgently upgraded. This is related to our national security as well. Likewise, it is natural for India to want to keep the international airport of the country with which it shares open border in order. But I still believe that the project should be carried out through internal resources. We should not depend on our neighbor for such a sensitive project. After all, it’s not even a large project. We must complete the project but on our own initiative. How do you assess India’s role in Nepal’s political affairs? First, we should not blame others for our problems. That does not solve anything. If the political forces in Nepal are bold enough, no one can meddle into our internal affairs. So we are to blame for this situation where we have come to believe that there can be no meaningful political solutions without external interference. The situation is such that even if the political parties are successful in breaking the current logjam, people will suspect India’s hand. This is really sad. There is a lot to do to correct this misperception. But it would be best for our neighbors to stay away from our internal affairs to dispel doubts on their true intent. PM Bhattarai is said to be enjoying New Delhi’s backing even now. Meanwhile, the President is currently in India on an official visit. There are speculations that the President will come back to Nepal with India’s message on breaking the logjam. What is your view on this? I do not want to comment much about it. It is necessary for us to assure the people that we do not rely on external forces to solve our problems. As for President’s India visit, as a sitting foreign minister and a leader of a responsible political party, I had suggested to the President that this would not be the right time for the head of the state to go on six-day foreign visit, especially while he has been active in bringing political forces together and asking them to forge consensus. I had told him that as someone playing the coordinator’s role to break the political impasse, he should stay back. I even suggested that he could go to Benaras for one day, if he must. Second, there is the question of reciprocity. We cannot take the President’s visit in negative light. But this is his third visit since he became President, while neither the Indian head of the state nor the Indian head of the government has paid a visit to Nepal for over a decade. I had requested the President to consider this aspect as well. How do you assess the concerns of the broader international community on political development in Nepal? I have found them really positive about our success in settling the issue of army integration. But they seem to be disappointed at the slow progress in constitution making. They want Nepal to get a constitution through new CA. They want to see the end of political deadlock at the earliest. Indian media seems to be worried about growing Chinese assertiveness in Nepal. How do you view this development? I do not see it that way. China considers Nepal a good neighbor. It has no other interest than to see prosperous and stable Nepal. China wants Nepal to maintain good relationship with India as well. Chinese officials and delegates have shared this concern with me. Finally, do you see any hope of the current deadlock ending by the time the President returns Saturday? Let’s hope so. But as I said, it all depends on whether the political parties will be bold enough to come to consensus by the time. But given the urgency, there is no other way as well. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=46777 Following President Ram Baran Yadav’s fifth extension of consensus deadline, Chairman of the breakaway Maoist party, CPN-Maoist, Mohan Baidya, seems indifferent to hectic parleys between four major forces. He believes the ongoing talks are unlikely to lead to lasting solutions without inclusion of all political forces. Kiran Pun and Biswas Baral tried to find out more about the veteran Maoist leader’s displeasure with the ongoing process. [break] How do you evaluate the President’s initiative for consensus among political parties? As the head of the state and as the protector of the interim constitution, the President’s initiative for a breakthrough must be taken positively. But what has been happening is that instead of all the political parties sitting down to find a breakthrough, only the so-called major forces have been sitting for talks. This is not a positive development. PHOTO: KIRAN PUN You believe there has been no effort to take your party into confidence? Not just our party, I mean there should have been talks among all the big and small parties. The President should have consulted all the forces before making any move, rather than trying to take just three or four parties into confidence. Thus while we appreciate the President’s initiative to find consensus, we believe his effort has fallen short. If there is an agreement between these three or four forces, will it be acceptable to you? I believe current political discussions have been by and large focused on who will become the new prime minister rather than trying to find solutions to the country’s problems by discussing specific agendas. Whether or not we will accept the agreement depends on its nature. But it is true that we have not been included in discussions. Haven’t you been involved in discussions with other parties to get the backing for CPN-Maoist PM candidate Ram Bahadur Thapa ‘Badal’? There had been a round of discussions with various party leaders, but of late there has been no discussion on this front. We would be able to put forth our views strongly if there was a broad multiparty platform, which is lacking at present. If there is a breakthrough between major parties and CPN-Maoist is then asked to join the new government, will the party join? Now the situation is such that the same forces that were responsible for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly say that they can both provide a breakthrough as well as lead the country into next election. First, there has to be an assessment of what went wrong: what was it that led to the dissolution of the old CA? Second, given that we have been hearing various party leaders say that old agreements should be abandoned since we are going to elect a new CA, it has to be clear what will happen to old agreements. Even the nature of upcoming election remains unclear. Only when there are discussions on these issues will the way forward be clear. Some of the top CPN-Maoist leaders have been saying that they will boycott polls if they are held without taking the party into confidence. Yes, there is no question of taking part in an election decided without taking us into confidence. We won’t accept any agreement limited to three or four parties. What is the current political roadmap of CPN-Maoist? The final roadmap will come into shape during our general convention in January. It is very hard to say what our strategy will be in the current state of confusion in the country, when the prospect of new CA polls hangs in the balance and the country’s future course seems unclear. Has there been any effort from the ruling coalition or opposition parties to reach out to you? No, there has been no formal approach from the ruling coalition. We have held a round of conversation with CPN-UML leaders, but by and large, we have been left out of current negotiations. Has the President made the effort? We have been in touch with the President. Since the President has been making an effort for a breakthrough through Article 38 (1) of the interim constitution, we have also been discussing what will happen if this course fails. I believe the President should try to establish consensus among all political parties. His efforts so far have not proven enough. How do you interpret the rift that seems to be appearing between PM Bhattarai and Pushpa Kamal Dahal over government change? Looking at news reports, it appears that there are differences between Bhattarai and Dahal on formation of consensus government. I don’t think there are significant ideological differences between the two, even while they might have differences over specific issues. The two Maoist parties are scheduled to hold their general conventions in the near future. How will the two general conventions be different? One, UCPN (Maoist) has been saying that there is no need for ‘new people’s revolution’ in the changed context, while we are firmly in favor of it. Two, we will emphasize the issue of national sovereignty in our general convention, while the other party is unlikely to give this issue much importance. Besides these, the other party has decided to move ahead with the agenda of ‘federal democratic republic’ while we will continue to empathize ‘people’s federal republic’. On the political front, we believe UCPN (Maoist) made grave mistakes and contributed to CA’s failure, while they are not ready to admit to any such mistake. These might be some points of differences. UCPN (Maoist) leaders have been saying that since you have not been able to justify splitting the party, the chances of reunion are high. Is that the case? The rationale for the split in the Maoist party is amply clear in party documents and in the behavior of UCPN (Maoist) leaders. So far as the issue of unity is concerned, there is no such possibility at the moment. What we have been saying is that they should accept their past mistakes and take up the agendas they have left behind. Until this happens, there is no prospect of unity. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=46401 CPN-UML Politburo member Pradeep Gyanwali has been active in the peace and constitution making process right from the signing of the 12-point accord in 2005 and is considered a strong ideological voice in the party. Biswas Baral talked to Gyanwali, who is also UML spokesperson, about the current political process and UML’s role in. [break] The second extended deadline the President set for formation of consensus government has expired. Why is the process stuck? The reason we have not had a breakthrough so far is because of the constant Maoist flip-flop on important issues. This kind of Maoist tactic makes agreements impossible. For a long time the Maoists said they were open for a new government if the opposition parties could put forth their PM candidate. In this backdrop, Nepali Congress proposed Sushil Koirala as the party’s official PM candidate and UML endorsed his candidacy. But no sooner had NC settled on its candidate, the Maoists came up with new preconditions. This unpredictable and devious Maoist attitude has been the biggest hurdle to formation of new government. In this climate, I don’t see a breakthrough on the horizon. What is the UML bottom-line on consensus government? We have four conditions. First, election of new CA by coming May. Second, clearing the hurdles to new CA polls through consensus, which entail constitutional amendments, appointment of election commission officials and finalization of the shape and representation structure of new CA. Our third condition is that the work completed by the old CA must find continuity in the new CA. Fourth, we believe consensus government is a must to achieve all these goals. UML’s roadmap has consensus government as its starting point, and election of new CA and promulgation of new constitution the end point. Our main focus will be shortening the period of transition through timely CA polls. We have already had signs that if we let the transition continue indefinitely, all progressive changes since 2006 could be reversed. Also, our geopolitical reality is such that the longer the transition, the more the prospects of foreign meddling. The ruling Maoist party has said it is ready to exercise ‘maximum flexibility’. Do you imply that their words are not replicated in their actions? The current Maoist proposal is very ambiguous. At a personal level, I do not trust them yet. Although the Maoists have been making these public pronouncements, what we find in reality is that their only goal at present is to prolong their hold on power. Until and unless the Maoists show their flexibility through concrete steps, words alone count for little. You said you don’t see possibility of a breakthrough in near future. Why? A breakthrough is unlikely because the Bhattarai government can only be removed in one of two ways: either through consensus or through street pressure. Whatever they say, the Maoists are yet to show the kind of flexibility needed for a breakthrough, which precludes chances of consensus. At present, there is also no prospect of the kind of strong protests that will be needed to oust the government. I also suspect the forces that are backing the Bhattarai government would like to see the recent split in the Maoist party formalized. They might thus be waiting for the upcoming general convention of the Mohan Baidya-led Maoist party (Jan 9-13) to cement the division. How do you evaluate the conditions of the ruling coalition for leadership change? We had kept the option of CA revival open until September. We wanted to give legitimacy to the work carried out by the expired CA. But now, we have again come back to the alignment witnessed on May 27. At the time, the Maoists refused to back away from their stand of single-identity federal model. The other parties were in no position to concede to this demand. Now the same polarization is reappearing as the Maoists have decided to go back on our earlier (post CA dissolution) agreement that these issues can only be resolved through fresh mandate. Now, for the Maoists to say that these issues should be settled before formation of new government under NC leadership is political dishonesty and a ploy to prolong the impasse. This only heightens our suspicion that the Maoists are reluctant to let go of their hold over the government. But isn’t it logical to seek agreements on issues that led to CA’s dissolution? Otherwise, won’t the constitution making process be stalled again over the same issues? First of all, if those issues could have been settled, we would have had a constitution by May 27. In the lead up to May 27, we had proposed that a constitution be promulgated by incorporating the agreed points, leaving the resolution of a few contentious issues for another date. Back in September, we proposed the revival of CA to settle these issues. But even this effort failed to bear fruit. Like I said, to insist now that these issues be settled before formation of new government is political dishonesty. This again makes us suspicious that the Maoists are afraid of elections. But the ruling alliance seems to believe the exact opposite, that it is the ‘status quoist’ NC and UML who are against election. There are certain fundamental issues which decide if a party is progressive or regressive. In the past, UML has consistantly spoken in favor of a republic in place of an authoritarian monarchy. Was that a status qoist stand? Or is our refusal to accept any kind of authoritarian rule and speaking in favor of full-fledged democracy and pluralism status quoist? What about our advocacy of inclusion and democracy with social justice? The reason the Maoists blame us of being status quoist is because they are wont to giving their extremist positions revolutionary colors. For a long time, they were against independent judiciary. They were advocating guided democracy where only ‘progressive forces’ would be allowed to compete. It is because of their faulty lens that they see parties like UML as status quoist forces. In fact, if you look at the shift in Maoist ideology in recent times, it seems they are slowly moving from the extreme left to the extreme right. While once they championed class-based policies, they now champion caste-based politics. At one time, the Maoists were identified with extreme nationalism, now they have become completely subservient to foreign masters. At one time Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai had announced that since true socialists are corrupted by power, they would never enter government. Now, they are ready to ally themselves with just about any force to stick to power. Since CA polls seem to be the common agenda of all major forces, what is wrong in joining the current government to reach that goal? UML was in the same Bhattarai-led government before CA’s dissolution. In fact, Baburamji became one of only two leaders (along with GP Koirala) who got to lead a consensus government post 2006. This was a great opportunity for him. Showing great magnanimity, we joined the government against a prime minister the party had voted against during the voting for new prime minister in CA. Baburamji misused this historic opportunity. When he decided to move ahead unilaterally on May 27, we considered it a political betrayal. Second, Bhattarai showed no remorse for the demise of the CA under his watch, even though he had assumed government leadership with the promise of completing the peace and constitution process. Third, he showed no regret for his failure to hold the Nov 22 election which he had announced himself. This way, he has lost the moral and constitutional grounds to lead the country. This is the reason there is no possibility of going into election under Baburam Bhattarai’s leadership. But that still doesn’t answer the question: If CA polls are the end goal, why don’t opposition parties clear the way towards election by joining the Bhattarai government? If we were going for a regular parliamentary election, the question of government leadership would have been immaterial. But the new election will be for a Constituent Assembly, which is a modality of conflict resolution accepted by the two sides (the then Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists) to the peace process. Both the sides should agree to elect a new CA. CA polls cannot be announced on a unilateral basis. Even if you look at 2008 CA polls, they were held only after we brought the Maoists into the government. Before the Maoists entered the government, CA polls had to be postponed time and again. This again goes to show CA polls are not possible without all relevant stakeholders of the peace process on board. Let us come to the party’s internal matters. A section under Ashok Rai recently broke away from the party. Separately, old divisions seem to have resurfaced during the ongoing central committee meeting. It appears that UML is a divided house even after Rai’s exit. Basically, the party is united. The issues that have emerged at the ongoing central committee meeting are isolated. In any case, these have been settled following self-criticism of standing committee leaders who seemed to have taken certain decisions without due process or without broad consent. The speculation in the media that old divides have resurfaced is not well grounded. It is not unusual for democratic parties to witness issue-based groupings, but of late even those divisions have been largely bridged. As far as Ashok Rai and some of his followers’ exit from the party is concerned, yes, it was an unfortunate development for UML. What is UML’s stand on the option of a non-political candidate for government leadership? We are not ready to accept that option. The parties might be weak, and so might the politicians. But we are not ready to hand the country over to an individual, thereby giving the message that the whole party-based political system is dysfunctional. Even though the parties have many limitations and constraints, they should have the final say in deciding the country’s fate. It would not be wise to seek solutions from outside major parties. I believe the Maoists should not make the question of government leadership an ego issue and be ready to go into new election under Nepali Congress leadership. The Maoists must be aware that efforts are already underway to take the country on a radically different path, one that could undermine all progressive changes since 2006. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=45986 Human rights activist and civil society leader Padma Ratna Tuladhar was instrumental in bringing the warring CPN (Maoist) into mainstream politics. For more than two decades since the 1990 democratic change, he has played the role of a political mediator and negotiator. Biswas Baral and Mahabir Paudyal caught up with Tuladhar, who is also involved in current political negotiations, about the status of the ongoing talks, the reasons for misunderstandings between governing and opposition forces, and the likely way out. [break] You have been involved in the peace process in the role of a mediator right from its start in 2006. How would you evaluate the progress of the peace and constitution making process in the last six years? Even before the start of the peace process, there had been formal talks between successive governments and the then Maoist rebels. But due to the government’s failure to meet the Maoist bottom-line of round-table conference and Constituent Assembly, there had been no breakthrough. But the mainstream parties came around and agreed to these Maoist demands during the signing of the 12-point understanding in New Delhi in 2005, which helped establish political consensus on election of constituent assembly and end of autocratic monarchy. This atmosphere of trust between political actors created conducive environment for the April 2006 mass movement. At the time, the Seven Party Alliance was led by Girija Prasad Koirala and the Maoist party by Pushpa Kamal Dahal. It was good rapport between the two which allowed for the 12-point accord and successful 2006 protests. It is said that the sole point of unity between the Maoist and non-Maoist actors at the time of the signing of the 12-point accord was their opposition to monarchy, and with the abolition of the institution in 2008, their latent differences started surfacing again. Is that the case? Since 1950 there has been a demand for a constitution drafted by people’s representatives, which had also been one of the chief Maoist demands since they started the war in 1996. Hence, so long as the government party couldn’t agree on constituent assembly, talks failed to bear fruit. But the 12-point agreement, with its provision for CA polls, brought all political forces on the same page. Until that time, the parties had not agreed to abolition of monarchy; they were only against absolute monarchy. While the Maoists were all along for a republic, other parties wanted to retain ceremonial role for the monarch. Nepali Congress and CPN-UML had not been able to decide on a republic. But again, it was the understanding between Maoist chairman Dahal and NC President Koirala which helped bring the two parties closer on the republican agenda. You imply that the parties’ common stand on republic had brought them closer. What then started pushing them apart again? The interim constitution had emphasized the need for consensus to take the political process forward. But when the Maoists emerged the biggest party in the CA polls, other parties started arguing that if the government was always to be formed on the basis of consensus, no one could remove the Maoists from power. At this point, say the Maoists, other parties asked them to choose between a republic and an amendment of the interim constitution’s provision on consensus for government formation. Maoist chief Dahal told us at the time that since the Maoists could not compromise on the agenda of republic, they agreed to removal of the provision for consensus. This was the time when the atmosphere of trust between the parties started to sour. You pointed out that amendment of the IC’s provision for consensus was beginning of the cycle of mistrust between Maoist and non-Maoist parties. How has this atmosphere of mistrust evolved over the years? Though the causes have differed, the country’s problems remain the same: the inability of the political actors to trust one another. The non-Maoist actors believe the Maoists are really out to capture state powers, as outlined in their official documents. Maoist chief Dahal’s removal of army chief further heightened the suspicion that they were really out to capture state powers by rendering all state organs dysfunctional. Dahal had to resign at what he and the Maoists perceived as an attempt to corner them. This took the level of mistrust to a whole new level. If things had worked as planned, Girija Prasad Koirala should have been the first president of republican Nepal—for his leadership of the peace process, his guiding role in the 2006 movement, and his towering national and international stature. Even Dahal had agreed to it. But as the delay over the formation of new government after CA polls prolonged, the polarization between Maoists and non-Maoist forces started to increase. Finally, the Maoists reached a point where they started feeling that if Koirala was given the presidency, he would establish the president’s office as a power center, severely restricting the prime minister’s maneuverability. The other fear was that the loyalty of Nepal Army would shift to Koirala. This was the reason Koirala’s inevitable ascent to the post of the president had to be aborted. The heightened climate of mistrust at the time still prevails. The opposition parties fear the Maoists are out to capture state power by prolonging their stay in government leadership. Is this fear justified? First, you have to evaluate whether there is a climate where one party can capture state power. In my view, both Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai have been among the weakest prime ministers in Nepal’s history. Dahal couldn’t establish an army chief of his choice; Bhattarai couldn’t even establish his pick of police chief. Do you believe the Maoists have left their ideology of state capture behind? No, the Maoists haven’t yet said that they have given up Maoist ideology, which is one of the main reasons for mistrust among opposition parties. Even in my interactions with international actors, I like to say that the Maoists are still Maoists as their official documents still talk of a ‘revolutionary’ course. But under current circumstances, the Maoists are in no position to push for a ‘people’s constitution’; the constitution will emerge through agreement between political parties. Both Dahal and Bhattarai have made it clear that they are now in peaceful politics and have no intention of returning to the jungle. What in your view is the way out of the current crisis? The opposition parties have been calling on the prime minister to resign, to make way for a consensus government. The biggest tragedy of the ongoing peace and constitution making process in Nepal is the failure of the parties to decide major issues on consensus basis. Yes, the ideologies of the Maoists are polar opposites to those of Nepali Congress. But the 2006 movement was carried out on common agendas, for common goals. Even now, the agendas and goals remain the same. It is to bring a constitution and build new Nepal. Despite this, they have not been able to see eye to eye in recent times. Again, there is no alternative to consensus politics and development of coalition culture. Whoever heads a coalition government is bound by common programs, code of conduct and consensual politics. Without the development of coalition culture, no government will be sustainable. The problem in Nepal is that if someone bags the PM’s post, he tries to run the government according to the whims of his party. The suspicion that if a particular party holds a particular government post in election government, it will have an upper hand in the election is ultimately an un-political, antidemocratic belief. Nepali Congress has just nominated party President Sushil Koirala as the official PM candidate. Do you see any possibility of consensus emerging on his name? He can be an alternative. All the parties agree that consensus government is one of the ways to break the deadlock. Even if there is a package deal, government formation will be a crucial part of it. But the question is: what should be the priority? Should it be just a change in government, or also evaluation of the reasons behind the failure to come up with a constitution so far and possible obstacles to the constitutional process in the future? It is not a question of an individual being acceptable as a PM candidate. Also, just because one or two parties settle on a name does not mean that person is a consensus candidate. There has been a lot of talk about the option of a neutral PM candidate. How do you evaluate its likelihood? Although there has been a lot of discussion on a neutral PM candidate in the media, I know of no serious discussion on this option inside the political parties. But if the parties repeatedly fail to establish consensus on a name, despite repeated extensions of the timeline for consensus, what happens then? Instead of letting the political deadlock continue indefinitely, pushing Nepal closer and closer to failed-country status, isn’t it a much better option to find an alternative candidate? But first the political parties will have to agree that if they cannot come to an agreement at the end of a particular period, they will be ready to explore a third option. But even in this case, it won’t be an easy task. The civil society is bitterly divided along political lines. Each party is likely to field its own ‘apolitical’ candidate. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=45604 There is a lot of suspense on the shape of the new government following President Ram Baran Yadav’s ultimatum to political parties to come to an agreement on new consensus government by today, a deadline which is likely to be extended. The ruling alliance led by PM Baburam Bhattarai seems to be in no mood to give in to the opposition demand to vacate office. The opposition led by Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, meanwhile, insists that the PM should step aside before meaningful negotiations on new polls can begin. With the future course unclear, pressure has been mounting on Nepali Congress to declare its PM candidate. Kosh Raj Koirala and Biswas Baral talked to Nepali Congress Central Working Committee member Arjun Narasingh KC, who holds a masters degree in political science from Tribhuvan University, about the likelihood of NC-led government, internal divisions within the party and its role in national politics. [break] How does Nepali Congress view the President’s call for consensus government? The President has been holding discussions with leaders from both ruling and opposition coalitions for the last five and a half months to find a way out of the current crisis. Nepali Congress has decided that new CA polls is the only way out. We want free, independent and intimidation-free election. This is the reason we have been consistently advocating for consensus government. Our position aligns with that of the President. Since the President’s relentless quest for consensus proved futile, he was forced to call for new consensus government. The party strongly opposes any attempt at deliberately misinterpreting the President’s honest intention of establishing broad consensus for new government. The President has taken this decision in good faith, realizing that there is no alternative to consensus government. Why can’t the caretaker government under Baburam Bhattarai be transformed into consensus government? First, we are yet to establish how committed the Maoists are to the concept of loktantra (democracy). We are still not in a position to accept their words at face value. On the other hand, the Bhattarai government has been a total failure politically, ideologically and morally after failing to hold the Nov. 22 election. In this situation, Congress believes its ouster is only way out of the current impasse. Nepali Congress has been steering the country’s political course since the signing of the 12-point agreement in 2005. Congress led the process of signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord, as well as the drafting of the Interim Constitution and declaration of the Federal Democratic Republic. This makes it a natural contender for government leadership. Also, consider that in the four and a half years, the Maoists have led the government twice and so have CPN-UML. Now it’s the turn of Congress. Besides this, Congress has a proven track record as a democratic party and has successfully held free and fair elections in the past. The 2008 CA polls were held under the leadership of Girija Prasad Koirala, an election which Congress lost badly. This shows the party was able to hold free and fair polls. This is the reason Congress has been claiming leadership with the promise to hold election in Baishakh (April/May). The Maoists say they are not ready to accept Congress leadership since Congress is not ready to accept their leadership. Congress will continue to claim leadership until the last moment. But the party’s broader mission is democracy and free elections. If there are alternative solutions which allow for free and free polls by April-May, we are ready to discuss even such alternatives. On the other hand, the Maoists have just made public their policy of exclusion against Congress and UML, which shows that the Maoists are intent on taking the country on the path of conflict, not consensus. We believe this is part of the Maoist ploy to capture state power by indefinitely prolonging its tenure at the top. The way they have ignored the two forces that have been at the forefront of national politics since the start of the peace process, it appears they want to revert to the path of conflict and state capture. The President has called for a consensus government under Article 38 (1) of the interim constitution. What happens if the parties fail to build consensus by the given timeline? Once again, I would like to emphasize that there is no alternative to consensus and the policy of exclusion that the Maoists have adopted doesn’t help find a way out. It is important that all options on the table be discussed. So far as the President’s call for consensus by a given timeline is concerned, he himself has established the precedent of giving the political parties extra time to resolve their differences. This time too, I believe the President will extend the deadline for consensus since there is no other alternative. The spirit of the interim constitution, which, remember, is the only constitution in Nepal’s history that has been prepared solely by people’s representatives, is embodied in the words consensus, cooperation and unity. This is the reason I say there is no alternative to consensus politics. But if the Maoists don’t abandon their exclusionist policies and remain wedded to the idea of state capture, democratic forces would be compelled to mount a decisive movement (against the government). You hinted that a neutral third-party contender might be considered for leadership of new consensus government. Is that the party’s stand? We haven’t said we will accept any such candidate, but unlike the Maoists, we don’t rule out the possibility. Congress will always make the first claim. Nonetheless, since new CA polls is our focus, we should be open to discuss all options that lead to this end. Can you tell us who is the Congress candidate for government leadership? The Congress is not as divided as has been portrayed in the media. Whenever the country faces a crisis, the party decides as one. This time too, our candidate will be chosen with consensus. But who will be that candidate? I am not in a position to say who the candidate will be in an official capacity. But we are very close to an agreement. Yet Congress maintains that ours is a political party system. Unless the ruling parties don’t make it clear whether Congress leadership is acceptable to them, the party will be in two minds whether to settle on a particular candidate. We have been careful since we have in the past witnessed a tendency to engineer divides within Congress party by luring certain leaders with the PM bait. But at a time when even the parties in opposition have been asking Congress to pick its PM candidate, won’t putting forward one particular candidate help build pressure on the ruling alliance? Do you honestly believe that our failure to pick a PM candidate is the main reason why there has been no consensus government under our leadership? Only Tuesday, the Maoists made an official stand that they would not accept Congress or UML leadership. Maoist Chairman Prachanda made it clear that no figure from outside the ruling alliance would be acceptable as a PM candidate. The moment we get the message that Congress leadership is acceptable to the ruling coalition, we will not delay naming our candidate even by a minute. Hasn’t Party President Sushil Koirala been lobbying for his own candidacy of late? It would be wrong to interpret his recent political discussions in this light. He has been lobbying for Congress government leadership. If tomorrow we decide he will lead the party into new government, then he will be our official PM candidate. Since election seems to be the end goal of Congress, can’t the same end also be achieved by joining the current government? This is not possible. If we go into new election under current leadership, there can neither be free and fair polls, nor will we be able to preserve our democratic values. This will be counterproductive not only for Congress but for the whole country. Some of the Madhesh-based parties have said that they cannot support Congress since the party is anti-federalist. How do you respond? The Congress as a whole is in favor of federalism. Let me remind you once again, it was during Congress leadership that the country was declared a federal republic. Under whose leadership was the interim constitution drafted? Congress again. The various political agreements with the Madheshi Morcha were also carried out under our leadership. So far as our ideological commitment to federalism is concerned, we are fully committed. But given that the country has 119 ethnic groups and not one of the 75 districts has the majority of even one ethnic group, we doubt ethnic states can preserve national unity and communal harmony. When I talk to Madheshi leaders, I often ask them: Why are you advocating for ethnic states up in the hills and mountains but want geographical divisions down in the plains? Why this double standard? As Congress believes such ethnic demarcations are harmful, it has pursued the idea of “jatiya pahichan bhetine, dwanda metine” demarcation (federalism which “recognizes ethnic identity but also rules out conflict”). I personally believe that the issue of single-ethnic state vs common state should be taken to national referendum which can be held side by side the next election. But if you continue to pick fights on this thorny issue, I doubt we will get a constitution even after new CA polls. Why not let the sovereign people decide? Many accuse Congress of having no greater agenda than replacing the Maoist-led government with its own. Can you tell us what agenda does NC plan to take to the people in the lead up to the new CA polls? First, we will remind people of how we have all along fought for universally accepted democratic norms and values. Two, we will make a pitch for social justice and inclusive politics through socio-economic transformation of the country by stepping on our rich socialist heritage. We would also request Nepalis: You gave those who didn’t believe in constitutionalism, those who have been saying that the concept of pluralism is not in their dictionary, a chance, and they failed. Now give Congress, a party which adheres to the values of constitutionalism, pluralism and rule of law a chance to draft a constitution for new Nepal. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=45145 Rotary International (RI) is a service club with the stated purpose of bringing together business and professional leaders in order to provide humanitarian services, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. RI has over 34,000 clubs and over 1.2 million members around the world. The current RI President Sakuji Tanaka took office on July 1, 2012, with the vision of “Peace through service”. Tanaka is former president of Tanaka Company Limited, a leading wholesale firm in Japan and has since 1975 served in various positions in RI, including as RI director and regional Rotary foundation coordinator. Tanaka arrived in Nepal on Monday to chair a two-day program, Rotary Vocational Award. Excerpts from his Interview with Republica: We learn that you visited Nepal two decades ago. How has the country changed? I feel people’s need then and now have not changed much. It is necessary to understand the need of particular communities. Responding to at least people’s basic demands has to be the priority of government and other organizations working in Nepal. Ensuring food, health, nutrition and education should be among those priorities. What were your agendas while filing your nomination for RI President? What do you hope to achieve during your one-year term? We hear the word peace through media a lot. We use it in our conversations and we talk about it in Rotary as well. But what is peace and what does it mean? Peace can be defined as a state of no war. It means that you are not in danger. But peace can also mean freedom of thought. It can mean security and confidence in the future and a stable society. It means different things to different people. No matter how we understand the word, Rotary can help achieve peace through service. You focus is “Peace through service”. But isn’t peace building a long-term project, while you serve as RI president only for a year? Although I get only a year as RI President, it will be my great achievement if all 1.24 million Rotary activists in 34,000 clubs contribute to peace building. I have set the agenda, but peace should not rely on individual leadership. We need to respect the diversity amidst our differences. Finding strength rather than faults in people is important. I goad Rotary clubs to discuss the meaning of peace and to work together to achieve our goal of peace through service. Rotary’s motto ‘Service Above Self’ reminds us that one cannot live aimlessly and alone. When we live for others we focus on our role as an individual, and in the family, community, and all humanity, at national and international levels. Then, we make our own place in the world. WEEKLY INTERVIEW In what ways does the Rotary theme of “Peace through service” help build peace in Nepal? You are a Nepali and you must have realized the root causes of conflict in your country. My interpretation is that people can’t live without food, education and medical assistance. And if they can improve their livelihood, by our help, they can develop long term peace and harmony. Through our Rotary services, we know that cooperation is more productive than conflict. We learn to value each other. We know that each of us has something to give, and everyone has something to teach. Rotary’s six focused areas are peace through conflict resolution and prevention; water and sanitation; maternal health and child care; disease prevention and treatment; basic education and literacy; and economic and community development—all implemented in Nepal through the involvement of Rotarians. Most Rotarians belong to high class. Given this reality, how does it fulfill your “Service Above Self” motto? It is a misconception that only rich people can be Rotarians. I was very poor when I was young. Before I joined Rotary, my view of the world was narrow. We were poor, everyone we knew was like us. But I have become the RI President. Everyone is equal in Rotary. Doesn’t it indicate people’s lack of interest in Rotary club that it has managed to enlist just over a million members in 200 countries? To increase membership is not our goal. The 34,000 communities come face to face and spell out their vision on future programs. This is the main strength of our organization. Rotarians are doing their best in Nepal and I am impressed with their performance. Last RI President Kalyan Banerjee had a vision of making the whole world literate. How will that vision be implemented during your tenure? Our Future Vision Plan is going to be launched soon. It will be combined with our six focus areas I have already mentioned. Literacy is important to emerge from poverty. In my visit to Africa, I found that illiteracy was the root cause of most of their problems. What is the amount of budget Rotary allocates to literacy? The RI does not have any specific budget. Whatever particular clubs or districts deem necessary is spent in the area. Are you planning to meet government representatives in Nepal? No matter where I go, I take the opportunity to meet top government officers and convey the message of peace through service. I will be grateful to meet the top level leaders of Nepal as well. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=45102 Nepa Construct Exhibitions (NCE) is organizing the 1st Nepa Construction Expo 2012 at Bhrikuti Mandap from November 30 to December 4. Kriti Bhuju of Republica talked to Ram Sharan Deuja, managing director of NCE, to know more about the expo and Nepal´s construction industry. Excerpts:[break] How did the idea of the expo come up? I have visited construction expos organized in different countries. During such visits, I realized that events like these can be beneficial for construction industry players like construction materials producers, dealers, developers, contractors and consumers as a whole. In Nepal, private construction works are done round the year and the government of late too has laid intensive focus on the development of infrastructure. Hence, we at the NCE thought it is the right time to organize a construction expo in Nepal. We are hopeful that the event will provide information about the status of the industry and different aspects associated with it. What will be the main features of the expo? All major stakeholders of the construction industry will showcase their products and services at the expo. We will also be organizing a technical session in which 11 speakers, including two from India, will make presentations on different aspects of construction industry, emerging technologies and innovations. Who are your expected visitors? We are expecting participation of people involved in the construction industry like building designers, professionals, contractors, consultants, project managers, government authorities, wholesalers of construction materials manufacturers and wholesalers, town and urban planners, engineers and architects, power producers and developers, real estate developers, industrialists and businessmen as well as individual visitors. How will the expo benefit exhibitors and the visitors? The exhibitors will be hugely benefited as they will get the opportunity to demonstrate their products and also get to know about their competitors. Besides, as this is the time for new constructions to take place, many individuals and contractors make their purchasing decision due to which companies will get the much needed exposure. As visitors can get everything related to construction industry - ranging from construction materials to heavy equipment and latest technology -- under one roof, they will definitely be benefited. What is the status of construction sector in Nepal? Nepal is in the initial phase in terms of constructional development as only 5 percent of the construction works have been carried out lately. Only basic infrastructure has been developed in Nepal. It has only been a few years that housing projects and shopping complexes started coming up in major cities. The country holds huge potential in tourism and hydropower sector. Unfortunately, little has been done in these sectors. What do you think are the major problems facing the construction industry of Nepal? The major problem is the attitude of the people toward those working in this sector. More than 14,000 people are directly involved in the industry but there is no protection from the government´s side. There is also a need to review the Public Procurement Act. Though the government has agreed in principle that qualification won´t be required to get a contract of up to 20 million rupees, the act has yet to be amended. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=44786 Ravi Kapila is the newly appointed General Manager of The Everest - Kathmandu based five star hotel. Experienced in the hospitality industry for around three decades and well versed in the operations of international chains in several countries of Middle-East and Asia, Kapila is optimistic about the tourism industry of Nepal. Samiksha Koirala of Republica caught up with Kapila to talk about his plans at the Everest hotel and overall tourism industry of the country. Excerpts:[break] Based on your short experience at the Everest, how do you rate the Nepali hotels in terms of service and amenities compared to hotels abroad? I am still gathering information to make specific comment in this regard as it has just been a few weeks since I joined the office. But what is for sure is there exists ample scope for improvment as hotels in Nepal lack many new facilities and are still unfamiliar with many new trends of the hospitality industry. Nevertheless, the best thing about the hotels in Asia, particularly in India and Nepal is we can provide personal touch to the guests, which I have not found in the hotels abroad. In this region, we have been offering a lot of warmth to the guests, something that makes them feel at home. And I am very happy with my team as well, as everyone have the learning attitude. The Everest hotel had announced plan of expanding more rooms few months ago. When will this expansion begin? We are positive about the expansion plan, but I can´t give you te exact date. We are currently busy focusing on renovation of the existing rooms. We have enough space for the additional rooms and the occupancy rate is good. But, at present I want to make best of the existing rooms, banquets and restaurants rather than going for a new project. Would you like to share your specific plans and targets? My plan for now is to focus on the renovation. It will continue for sometime. With huge number of Chinese tourists coming in, we are working on the plans to make their stay at the hotel more convenient. We have one of the best Chinese restaurants at the hotel and we are training our staff for more authentic Chinese taste. As a general manager, my focus will not be simply on increasing room sales. I also want to focus on local sales. We are targeting wedding banquets and restaurant sales too. We are organizing Master Chef Competition which will be an event for corporate people, family person and others. Besides, we will be also holding special event for the Christmas and New Year. The rates of the restaurants of the star hotels are higher compared to famous restaurants of the capital. In this situation, how do you plan to attract more guests? I completely agree with this. There are good restaurants offering good food and great ambience. Attracting more guests is a challenging task for us because our operating cost is higher and we can´t offer cheaper rates as they do. Likewise, strict enforcement of rule against drink and drive has pulled down the bar sales. So, we are thinking of providing pick up and drop to our guests. We are also planning to add new activities like live music, new themes and other to attract local guests. Hoteliers here pinpoint power cuts and labor unrest as major hindrances facing tourism industry? As a hotelier, what else do you consider as other challenges? We are spending thousands of rupees on fuel to ensure power back up, which definitely is not a good situation. We hope this problem will be solved soon. On the issue of labor, I have a different opinion. I know most of the workers are affiliated to some union here in Nepal, but their activities depend on how we treat them. Just because someone is affiliated to a trade union does not make him or her bad person. Apart from that, I feel our road infrastructure has deteriorated compared to the past. Tourists are never happy to see bumpy road with no street lights. These might sound like minor issues, but for tourists it ruins their whole experience. Do you plan to focus on particular segment of tourists? It is always healthy to focus on all segments of clients. I am happy The Everest has customers from different nationalities. The number of Chinese tourists is growing up and arrivals from India and other South Asian countries too is promising. But we have not being able to attract people from Middle East region, despite the good air connectivity. Having worked in that region, I know people there are very willing to travel and spend a good amount too. They can also be potential investors for Nepal. So, I am planning to focus on Middle East region. I also feel arrivals from South East Asia can increase if we put in some efforts. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=44592 With the country struggling to come to terms with a difficult transition, there is a lot of confusion on the county’s foreign policy conduct. Separately, there has been great interest in Nepal surrounding the US presidential election and the once-in-a-decade leadership change in China. Republica’s Biswas Baral talked to Bhekh Bahadur Thapa, former foreign minister and Nepal’s ambassador to the US and India, on the state of Nepal’s foreign policy, its challenges and the implications of change in the US and China on Nepal. [break] How do you evaluate the evolution of Nepal’s foreign policy in over six years of transition starting 2006? To begin with, the transition has been long and painful for Nepal. Six years is a very long time not to be able to see even a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. This said, as far as foreign policy goes, there has been continuity in certain areas. Foreign policy is guided by proper definition of national interests and a framework that enables taking a path that is good for the country, both internally and externally. It has certainly not changed for the good, for we have not been able to identify ourselves in the new context. The vision of New Nepal is only rhetoric. Unless we can be clear about where we stand ideologically, economically and in terms of our social structure, just discarding the past won’t do us any good. In your interactions with international actors do you find their perception of Nepal has changed during this time? In my interactions with our foreign friends, I found that, initially, they were happy that the civil conflict had come to an end. Then they started looking for a political framework with which to identify Nepal. The old structures had collapsed and there was a need to get new mandate for a new constitution. The perception is that somehow we missed that great opportunity. Four years is a long time (to come up with a constitution). Six years ago, Nepal was seen as a state that had put behind the larger conflict and charted a way towards peaceful new beginning based on rule of law, new constitution and democratic governance. But now we are surviving on a day to day basis. The situation is so bad that current political bargaining is not aimed at charting a new future for the country, but just to avoid confrontation between political actors. The only comfort is that things could have been a lot worse. The goodwill of the international community is still there but we need to come out with a minimum program on where Nepal stands, not only in relation to a governing framework at home but also our position in the world. Things are changing rapidly and the world is becoming an increasingly challenging place. For Nepal to lose all this time represents missed opportunity. How is the state of transition viewed in the neighborhood? Do our neighbors perceive the transition as representing some kind of threat to themselves? Both our neighbors loom large on the world arena as economic powerhouses. They are becoming major world actors. On a bilateral basis, China’s policy towards Nepal has been stable. It has desisted from advising Nepal on its political and socioeconomic structure. Barring a few remarks of Chinese academics, you see continuity of the hands-off policy. Our relationship with India is more extensive and more challenging. The extent of communication and collaboration between the two countries is incomparable. Ever since India became independent and Nepal got rid of the Rana regime, every major political development in Nepal has either received the blessing or some kind of hidden or open disapproval of India. The 2005 12-point understanding between the Maoists and other political parties could not have been possible without India’s nod. Because of the open border, India represents both a challenge as well as a threat. We now know that Maoist leaders enjoyed sanctuary in India during the time of insurgency. How India reconciled labeling them terrorists with harboring them as political workers is still a mystery. So the relationship is close, but also very complex. How has the role of external actors changed since 2006? Absence of constitution and bad governance are Nepal’s unpleasant reality, which also affects our foreign policy. Only a strong ruling structure can define national interest properly and take neighbors and other friends into confidence. Everyone takes advantage of a weak structure. In this state of transition Nepal is almost without a foreign policy. Foreign powers have free hand to do whatever they wish. Sometimes the government makes noises about bringing the outsiders within diplomatic code of conduct, but when you have no foreign policy, when you are unable to definite your national interest, and the conflict within and between the parties are so intense, this is not the time to look for clarity in foreign affairs. We are unclear about who we are and where we stand. No one disputes that moving to a federal structure will lead to better governance, but federal structure based upon what? We should be clear on this. When ethnicity is looked upon as a political tool, it will probably lead Nepal not to harmonious governance but more conflict. Has India’s interference in Nepal’s internal affairs increased in this period of prolonged transition? My observation based upon my own tenure as Nepal’s ambassador to India is that there is a tendency of Nepali leaders to seek blessing and guidance from New Delhi. The gap is on our side, not theirs. There is this mentality among Nepali political intelligentsia not to see themselves as equals to other actors in the global community. Every time Nepal puts forth matters of its interest with India, be it on citizenship, border issues, or water resources, there are reasonable people in India who can listen. Back in 1996 Indian PM IK Gujaral had adopted the principle of ‘non-reciprocity’ with neighbors. Our trade treaty with India at the time stands out as a model. But internal conflict and this submissive mentality of individual leaders and political parties have distorted the picture. We need to correct our own behavior instead of blaming others. By and large, there has been continuity in Indian policy towards Nepal, regardless of what is happening here. India’s overall Nepal policy hasn’t altered much in the last 50 years. It is but natural to try and influence another country to suit one’s national interest. This should not be taken otherwise. Ever since India became independent and Nepal got rid of the Rana regime, every major political development in Nepal has either received the blessing or some kind of hidden or open disapproval of India. We now know that Maoist leaders enjoyed sanctuary in India during the time of insurgency. How India reconciled labeling them terrorists with harboring them as political workers is still a mystery. China’s growing role in Nepal is a logical extension of China’s emergence as a major international actor. With Obama’s win, Nepal can expect continuity of help in health, environment and agriculture sectors, the areas Obama’s aid policy has helped Nepal the most. You hinted at China’s position of neutrality on Nepal. But hasn’t its political and economic involvement in Nepal increased of late? China is the second biggest economy in the world. In this situation, it is natural for China to flex its muscle. What is happening between China and Nepal now is a logical extension of China’s emergence as a major international actor. Increased investments by Chinese citizens and organizations in Nepal, in fields ranging from water resources to civil aviation, to the growth in arrival of Chinese tourists reflect today’s international reality. Isn’t China’s growing involvement also a reflection of its concern about Tibet independence activities looking to exploit the prolonged transition? The movement of Tibetan refugees through Nepali territories is an altogether separate issue. How China and the rest of the world perceive this problem is not directly related to increased Chinese interest in neighborhood. Why just Nepal? We see China’s greater presence even in countries like Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The Chinese are looking as far as Latin America and Africa for new investment opportunities. Will China’s leadership change have any effect on its Nepal policy? That will be stretching it a bit. Based on how China has conducted itself so far, it has remained silent on Nepal’s internal matters. China will obviously try to safeguard its national interests and that will be determined to the extent our assurance is credible. Other than that, the leadership change won’t affect Nepal much. What about the impact of the American presidential election, if any, on Nepal? Here again, we are not a major actor in global affairs. During my eight years as Nepal´s ambassador to the US, I served during the tenures of both Democratic and Republican presidents. The relationship between the US and Nepal has been steady, even more so on the economic side. The last major encounter between the two countries was in 1983 when late King Birendra went on a state visit to the US. It is said the US has been coordinating its Nepal policy with New Delhi of late. Is that the case? The unsaid part of the conduct of foreign policy in South Asia is India’s regional prominence, as acknowledged by the Europeans and Americans. At the diplomatic level, there is fair exchange of news and analysis between the Americans and the Indians as well as between the Europeans and the Indians vis-à-vis Nepal. This is not to say that they are guided by any one country. You said the American presidential election has little impact for Nepal. What about the reelection of Barack Obama? Obama has a more diplomatic approach to global problems, as opposed to his Republican counterparts. During the Presidency of George W Bush, the Nepali Maoist problem was looked upon as a threat to the global ideological position of the US. For the first time, the US gave M-16 rifles to Nepal Army, as against the Peace Corps and development assistance being at the heart of US-Nepal ties for over 50 years. With Obama’s win, Nepal can expect continuity of help in health, environment and agriculture sectors, the areas Obama’s aid policy has helped Nepal the most. Let us change the track. There has been criticism from certain quarters on the role of our European partners in the constitution making process. How do you evaluate their role in the constitutional process? The seeming highhandedness of some countries is a reflection of our own weakness. Our main weakness is our fragmented political structure. There is no party that stands by its manifesto. In the absence of a constitution, we don’t know where we stand in the world, ideologically as well as in relation to broader principles of humanity. Whether it’s the World Bank or the IMF or the WTO, human rights commissions or war crime tribunals, there are global mechanisms to evaluate each country’s performance and standing. Nepal’s challenge today is to be within the realm of acceptability of the global community. To highlight differences between different groups in a country and to play favorites, or to push policies aimed at punishing or sidelining certain groups, that is not done. Promoting certain religion or certain group will contribute to more fragmentation, not unity. Do you buy the argument that one of the reasons the country could not have a constitution is the pushing of ethnic agenda by donors? Let us not blame any INGO or a particular country. Every INGO or country has its own agenda. It is for us to come up with a formulation. Blaming others is being less than responsible. We need to safeguard our interests by defining ourselves. Everybody talks of New Nepal. But what is New Nepal? The contours of our borders remain unchanged. The citizens and natural resources are unchanged. So what is new? The country has to pursue the path of peace and reconciliation at home and friendship with the rest of the world; only that will allow us to prosper. Ultimately people’s interest is served by economic prosperity. Nepal has been in a period of transition for over six years. How should Nepal conduct its foreign policy in the meantime? Foreign policy is one area where all parties must discuss, thrash out and come up with consensus. Then they should abide by those agreements. Have you seen any leader from India coming to Nepal and saying their government is not doing something right? Whether Indian leaders belong to the government or opposition, they speak with one voice, because there is a mechanism within the parliament to thrash out differences through all-party mechanisms. Once common agenda is decided upon, even the opposition is bound by it. During this period of crisis, not a single party in Nepal has a single voice on any issue, foreign or domestic. It is in this situation that outsiders take advantage. The sooner we move to another phase, the better off we will be. Where do you think Nepal’s foreign policy is failing? At the moment there is no code of conduct, not only for government representatives but also for international actors. In India, even the intellectuals and think tanks are briefed on the fundamentals of foreign policy. There are no such mechanisms here. Earlier, the palace was privy to everything. After 1990, the parties started acting like little emperors. Now, we are in a period of transition and the fragmentation you see both within and among the parties, this has given rise to a most unappetizing situation. With the drastic changes witnessed in the last six years, have Nepal’s interests evolved? Or do a nation’s interests always remain the same? National interest based on territorial integrity, conservation and proper use of natural resources, and the identity and interest of the citizens—these comprise the hardware of national interest, which remain unchanged. Who is at the helm, what philosophy political parties adopt, these are the variables subject to changes. Now the situation is such that our natural resources have become political bargaining chips. This is a despicable situation. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=44420 Godrej Consumer Products recently organized ´QPS Target Scheme Distribution 2011/12´ to facilitate people involved in the distribution of Godrej consumer products in the Nepali market. Kriti Bhuju of Republica talked with Umashankar Mukherjee, country sales manager of Godrej Consumers Products, to know about the program and the performance of Godrej products in Nepali markets. Excerpts:[break] What actually is the ´QPS Target Scheme Distribution´ program? We organized this program in order to facilitate the traders involved in the distribution of Godrej consumer products in Nepal. We distribute various prizes to our traders based on their performance and sales volume. Our prizes include 11 gold coins, 50 silver coins, 28 refrigerators, 18 TV sets, 3 microwave ovens, 5 Nokia mobile sets, 10 dinner sets, 150 wall clocks and 52 fans with remote control. We have 365 traders all over the country. Can you inform us about the Godrej product range available in Nepal? Nepali customers can get out consumer products like Godrej Powder Hair Expert, Nupur mehendi, and Ezee detergent. In the insecticide segment, we have been distributing Good Knight and Hit aerosols, Good Knight low smoke coil, Good Knight mat with heater and Good Knight refills in the Nepali market. How are the Godrej products doing in the Nepali market? As per the report of AC Neilson, Godrej Consumer Products is the No. 1 brand in India in its product segments. In Nepal, we enjoy about 70 percent market share. Our market share here has doubled in just three years. This shows that our products are well accepted in the Nepali market. What about the prices? We always follow the market trend while fixing the price of our products. Our price is competitive as all our products are of very high quality and the customers get the value for their money spent. For example, customers can get Godrej Powder Hair Expert at Rs 23 for 5 grams, which means the products are very affordable. Are there any new products in the pipeline for Nepali customers? We will be introducing new range of products in the Nepali market this year. We are launching Good Knight eight-hour low smoke coils by the end of this month. We are also introducing Aer room freshener and car fragrance and Abha herbal hair dye next month. Besides, we are also re-launching Cinthol products in the Nepali market by the end of this year. Cinthol products include talcum powder, deo spray, soaps and shower gel. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=44149 The Baburam Bhattarai government is reportedly preparing a full budget to be announced mid-November. But President Ram Baran Yadav has hinted that he would endorse such a budget only if it has the backing of all major political forces, raising the prospect of another President-Prime Minister confrontation. Republica’s Biswas Baral talked to noted economist and professor of economics at Tribhuvan University Bishwambher Pyakuryal about the state of national economy, the economic impact of the failure to bring a full budget and the alternatives available to the government. First of all, how do you evaluate the current state of Nepali economy? If you look at the macroeconomic indicators, the economy looks more or less okay. The major concern is that the growth performance of industries, agriculture and even the service sector is sluggish. Moreover, the ratio of total consumption to GDP is steadily climbing, while the ratio of savings to GDP is declining. This hints at structural deficiencies. Take the case of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). While the number of joint ventures has increased, the total amount of investment has declined significantly. In terms of inflation, last year the average inflation in consumer price index was 8.3 percent. If you take the average of the first two months of this fiscal year, inflation is above 12 percent. The foreign trade regime is not very satisfactory as well and the country’s trade deficit has been steadily rising. All these hint at structural problems in Nepali economy. You said the economy looks okay. Do you imply the overall state of our economy is satisfactory despite some of the negative trends you point out? I wouldn’t say it is satisfactory, because like I said, there are structural problems. If you take the country’s trade with China, for the first time in Nepal’s history the number of Chinese joint ventures in Nepal has overtaken the number of Indian joint ventures. But if you assess the data of last seven years, you find that the average annual trade deficit with China still exceeds 21 percent, whereas the corresponding figure for India is under 14 percent. This is the kind of structural problems I am talking about. We need to evaluate the long-term trade deficit trends with our two big neighbors for policy considerations. There is huge surplus in Nepal’s balance of payment regime, but what you should also consider is that in under a year the exchange rate fluctuation of the rupee with the US dollar was more than Rs 17 per dollar. The reason remittance earnings increased was because the Nepali currency depreciated vis-à-vis US dollar. Our current account and BOP surplus are not the result of injection of fresh capital or because of an increase in employment opportunities. Considering all these factors, I wouldn’t call our modest economic growth satisfactory. The government is reportedly planning to bring a complete budget. What we would like to know is how the national budget impacts overall economy. The annual budget is extremely important. But where Nepal has traditionally failed is that there is a tendency to link budget with political issues. Under so condition should people be deprived of their annual budget. The budget is extremely important to give confidence to domestic investors and to prove our credibility to prospective foreign investors. In Nepal’s case, the budgetary behavior of political parties is motivated by their partisan interests. The country cannot be run this way. There has to be inter-party consensus on annual budget. The Supreme Court has also clearly said that the government can bring a budget with political consensus. But now, there is no political consensus. What kind of an impact does the failure to bring a full budget have on the economy? It will have a major impact on our investment climate. So long as the government makes no investment, the private sector too will hesitate to invest. In that case, there will be no possibility of employment generation, or of increasing wages and aggregate demand in the economy. The economy will contract. Already, we are faced with a situation of skyrocketing regular expenditure and the government’s failure to spend earmarked budget on development projects. This situation could get worse. Thus I would recommend the political parties to establish consensus on complete budget. The only constitutional clause that could block the budget is if the President is not fully satisfied with cabinet recommendations, but the President has already clarified that he would not block any consensus proposal. Once again, I would like to request the political parties not to link budget with political issues. Look at India which comes up with an annual budget on February 18 every year, whosoever is in power. Similar inter-party consensus on budget is needed in Nepal. A hypothetical and a slightly political question: What will happen if the President refuses to endorse the budget ordinance? How do the country’s finances operate under those circumstances? In that case the country will be a failed state. Already we don’t have a constitution-making body, we are short of Supreme Court judges, the government is a caretaker one, every political party is interpreting the interim constitution as it likes. On top of that if there is no budget, the county will surely be labeled a failed state. And if that happens, our development partners would have major concerns in financing just about any kind of activity here. As it is, the state of FDI inflow is poor. Nepal’s GDP is three times that of Laos and five times that of Mongolia. But if you look at total foreign investment, Laos’ FDI inflow is five times and Mongolia’s seven times that of Nepal. Nepal is a country where 60 percent of development budget comes through development partners. Now if you don’t even have a budget, there is no question of any budgetary assistance from any of our international partners or the World Bank. WEEKLY INTERVIEW Remittance increase is the result of Nepali currency’s depreciation against US dollar. The cause of current account and BOP surpluses is not injection of fresh capital or job growth. Nepal’s GDP is three times that of Laos and five times that of Mongolia. But Laos’ FDI inflow is five times and Mongolia’s seven times that of Nepal.  On the basis of amounts spent under specific heads in last four months, the President’s Office can suggest some basic guidelines for the new budget. Given its failure to spend, the government might not even need Rs 150 billion for the next partial budget. If there is no consensus on full budget or if the President has some reservation with the budget ordinance, even in that case some kind of a budget is a must. One of the approaches would be to obtain disaggregated data on both recurrent and development expenses in the last four months. On the basis of amounts spent under specific heads, the President’s Office can suggest some basic guidelines for the new budget. We are informed that capital expenditure in the last four months is extremely weak, in fact it is abysmal. If so, there might not be a case for a full budget. I personally think some kind of budget is inevitable, either through an ordinance (for the next four months) or through consensus (for the next eight months of the current fiscal year). Since you have been closely studying the economic policies of the Maoist-led government, what kind of a budget are you expecting? I believe that the Ministry of Finance has identified around two dozen priority areas, which includes assuring foreign investors of their investment. The issues that MoF has raised with us during our recent discussions would, in my view, be agreeable to most political parties. But the 201 new programs that were recently announced by the Prime Minister’s Office are different to my understanding of the programs being prepared by the finance ministry. On the nitty-gritty of the new budget, I have not privy to that information. Now that some kind of election is imminent, is there a danger of the government introducing a populist budget? First, we have to decide if we are going to authorize this government to bring a full-fledged budget, which means a budget for the remaining eight months of the current fiscal year. At this point, my recommendation would be to go for a conditional budget. Before endorsing the budget ordinance, the President can put forth certain conditions based on the disaggregated data on the expenditure on recurrent and development activities. You cannot do without paying the salaries to government employees. Such expenses are indispensible. But since there has been very limited expenditure in development activities, the government might not even need Rs 150 billion for the next partial budget. During that time, the political parties might arrive at consensus on a third round of budget. But before signing any budget ordinance, the President must make sure that the budget meets people’s basic needs like clean drinking water, basic health services and primary education. Second, he must make sure that the budget addresses the concerns of our development partners. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=44101 Sesh Ghale, a Nepal-born Australian millionaire, was in town to participate in the Non-Resident Nepali (NRN) Day 2069 last week. Ghale, who left his birth place in 1990 to pursue higher studies in Australia, has made remarkable achievements in the last two decades and enrolled himself in the list of top 200 millionaires Down Under. Ghale, who owns Melbourne Institute of Technology (MIT), recently announced to invest Rs 6.14 billion in Nepal´s tourism sector. Bhoj Raj Poudel of Republica talked to Ghale about his investment plan and other issues pertaining to investment climate in the country, particularly from NRNs. Excerpts: What are the potentialities that you found in Nepal? My investment has come to Nepal after a rigorous research and risk-analysis. We observed the market here and conducted an independent research. After that, we ultimately decided to invest in the tourism sector. Nepal is a tourist destination. But it lacks hotels that could cater to high-end tourists. We will try to fill that gap. Our target is to attract business tourists and not backpackers. You have decided to invest in Nepal when most of the international investors are shying away from making investment here. Is this the beginning of inflow of foreign investment from NRNs? I can´t say about others´ investment. But if you are talking about my project, we have already made a commitment to invest in Nepal and project implementation is already in preliminary phase. I express commitment to make additional investment in the country in the course of expanding the project. Though we originated from Nepal, we are foreign citizens. Investment from NRNs is definitely going to encourage other international investors to come here and invest. I am optimistic that international investors will view this step taken by an NRN as an indicator of improving situation of investment climate in Nepal. How much are you going to invest in Nepal and who would be other partners in this investment venture? I am going to invest 75 million Australian dollars (equivalent to Rs 6.14 billion) to establish a five star hotel in Kathmandu. The actual construction will begin from next year and will be completed by another three to three and half years. This is solely an Australian FDI from MIT Group based in Australia. What do you think the government should do to promote the FDI inflow in the country and encourage NRNs to invest in Nepal? The governments all over the world are competing to channel FDI flow to their respective countries. Hence, the government of Nepal also should be pro-active in luring foreign investment to the country. For this, the government has to play the role of a facilitator. Foreign investors worry about how to take back dividend to their home countries. They look for an easy bureaucratic process and seek commitment from the government on taking back investment and returns anytime they want. But for NRNs, that might not be a problem. We don´t worry too much about taking the investment and dividend back to the country where we are residing. So there is a difference between other foreign investors and NRNs. You said you were negotiating with some chain hotels to oversee the management of the hotel? Is it possible to give us names? I can´t disclose that now. But I can tell you that we are negotiating with chains such as Paris Hilton, Marriott, and Sheraton, among others. But I can´t tell you which hotel will come here. What do you expect from the government as an NRN? I think the government is aware that NRNs are the only people who can bring investment into the country at the moment. So there should be a one-window policy. Investment Board is in existence and it should give priority to projects of NRNs. The government should be working on easing the bureaucratic hurdles and facilitating investors. Let me change the topic and put some personal questions. How does it feel to be a millionaire? Everybody asks me this question. To be honest, it´s normal; I don´t feel much different. A millionaire is person whose wealth creation has been appreciated by the society. And once you become a millionaire others start believing in the values that you hold. How was the journey that led you to become a millionaire? It was not an easy one. I took risks and changed the direction of my life by moving to Australia. Consistent hard work and passion led me there. But I don´t believe in cutting corners in life. However, you should not be afraid of taking risks. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43743 Tuesday’s meeting between President Ram Baran Yadav and Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai seems to have cooled down the temperature that had been steadily climbing over the last few days as each was accused of working to subvert the authority of the other. But major differences between the ruling coalition and the parties in the opposition remain, which has undercut the chances of a breakthrough. This in turn has made it hard for President Yadav to push for consensus without exceeding his constitutional bounds. Biswas Baral spoke to Purna Man Shakya, a leading constitutional expert and one of the three lawyers who drafted the rules of procedure to govern the expired Constituent Assembly, to discuss to the options before the PM and the President, the chances of CA revival and the way out of the current impasse. [break] How have you seen the recent standoff between the President and the Prime Minister? It appears like President Yadav is trying to assert his authority, and the PM Bhattarai doesn’t like it. Probably the President is expressing his frustration on the inability of the government to break the ice. Probably he feels that the government is not doing enough. That is why the President has been so blunt against the government. But this is an issue that should be worked out between the two through free and frank discussions. The country cannot afford a situation where the President and the Prime Minister are pitted against one another. They should work together to solve the problems of the country. To that end, the two met on Tuesday, and the Prime Minister said the discussions were satisfactory. Let us hope they are able to work out something for the country. You said the President might be frustrated because the government is not doing enough. Constitutionally, what are the options before the government? A caretaker prime minister is also responsible for holding the election and he has the constitutional responsibility to assist and work for establishing a government with people’s mandate. A caretaker PM normally takes six months to hold the election and entrust the administration to the elected government. But four and a half months after the CA’s dissolution, the election is nowhere in sight. That might be the reason the President is not happy. I believe the President is trying to give a message, not only to the government, but also to the opposition, that he cannot remain a mere spectator, in the sense that if the political parties fail to work out a way for the reelection of CA, the President as the last resort will have to do something. The President giving out this message in public means he is very serious. The President is also the custodian of the interim constitution. In this role, he has to ensure the government and other stakeholders abide by the interim constitution and work to fulfill the objective of the interim constitution. The objective is to go for CA polls and complete the writing of the constitution. The objective of interim constitution is definitely not to let the current situation continue for an indefinite period. That is the message the President has tried to convey. Can you clarify how the objective of the interim constitution can be election of new CA when it clearly has no such provisions? The last CA failed to give the country a constitution. Thus the objective of the interim constitution remains unachieved. The objective of the interim constitution as defined in its preamble is to see to the promulgation of a constitution through a Constituent Assembly. So much is loud and clear. The challenge of the moment is to ensure the promulgation of the constitution by doing the least violence to prevailing provisions of the interim constitution. Another thing is ensuring consensus to pave the path to new election. The President has the responsibility to make sure that nobody, including the government of the day, hijacks the right of the sovereign people to elect a government that they believe will deliver them a constitution. For any way out the interim constitution must be amended. Some are in favor of amending it through a reinstated CA while others believe asking the President to remove difficulties will be equally legitimate. What is your take? Reinstatement of the dissolved CA is one of the options former CA members are talking about. But reinstatement looks impractical for a couple of reasons. One, the politics has advanced a lot since the election of the last CA. Many parties have broken up and new issues have emerged. In this situation, the best course of action is to let the people express their verdict through their votes. Two, as the Supreme Court has given its final verdict on the old CA, going for reinstatement would be saying that we don’t accept the Supreme Court as the final authority in the interpretation of the constitution. This concept is not acceptable. I am not sure the Supreme Court will allow the CA to function after reinstatement. If the CA is revived, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will intervene to prevent it from functioning. What do you make of the argument that the CA can be revived for short time for the sole purpose of amending the interim constitution? The CA members rooting for reinstatement want a complete constitution through the revived CA. They are not advocating for an amendment to clear the way for new polls. On the other hand, the political leaders who are not in the CA, and who are in favor of the reinstatement idea, want to clear the hurdle for fresh polls. You have to understand this crucial difference. If the current deadlock continues indefinitely, can the President step in to force a breakthrough? If the president is convinced that this government has no intention to hold election, then probably he will be justified in undertaking some kind of an intervention. But again, before he makes any such decision, the President has to weigh all the pros and cons and the inherent risks of such a move. It will not be that easy. Any move of the President has to have the support of the major political parties, including ruling parties. If the President plays partisan politics and if his move fails, then we could have a terrible crisis on our hands, for which the President will be held accountable. Therefore, before he acts the President has to make sure that any move he makes has a 100 percent chance of success. He cannot take risks. Cent percent success cannot be guaranteed unless he has the support of both the ruling and opposition parties. Some have also been arguing that with the CA gone, the role of the President’s Office has also been rendered null and void. What is the constitutional status of the President at present? There is no constitutional provision for the removal of the President right now. The interim constitution outlines no specific tenure for the President. He will remain as the President until a new constitution is promulgated and until the new constitution defines the role of the existing President. Therefore, he remains until a new CA is elected and until it delivers a new constitution. In this sense, his tenure is indefinite at the moment. This is the reason the country at some point has to go for reelection for a fresh mandate, and the President is well aware of this fact. Let’s change the track. The current quarterly budget runs out in under a month. What happens if the government forwards an ordinance for a partial or full budget and the President declines to endorse it without consensus among political parties? The very term caretaker suggests that the current government is there to take care of the daily affairs of the country. The government will not be able to carry out that duty unless it has the budget to ensure it can carry out its basic duties like providing salaries to government employees, undertaking maintenance work on existing infrastructure and meeting the day to day administrative costs. If there is political consensus among major parties, they could always go for a full budget for the remaining period. But if there is no consensus, the caretaker government is responsible for bringing another ordinance for a budget which at least takes care of its day to day expense. But in that case, the caretaker government cannot introduce major policy shifts because it does not have that mandate. Beyond strictly constitutional parameters, can a political argument be made for new CA polls? I don’t know what will be the shape of the new CA, but it will definitely give new life to the constitution making process. We can only hear the voices of the people who have access to media. But a large majority that doesn’t have such access has been silent. Election is the process through which these people will speak. This is the reason fresh election is advisable. Now that we have finished the process of integration of former Maoist combatants into Nepal Army, we should work hard on a new constitution. You played a part in the constitution making exercise of the dissolved CA. Since you suggest new polls offer a more legitimate way out, what should be the shape and timeline of the new CA? The ideal size would be around 301. A smaller CA would make deliberations more meaningful and proactive. But at this stage, it might be controversial to talk of changing the process of selection. The provisions for proportional representation and first-past-the-post could remain as they are, but we could always reduce the size. But then how do we do it in the absence of a legislature and in the absence of a plenipotentiary government? The President alone cannot change the constitution. Thus it is up to the political parties to sit together and find a way to amend the constitution. As of now, there is no constitutional way of doing it. What happens if there is broad consensus on CA reinstatement, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling? What will the judiciary’s role be at that moment? If the CA members decide to reinstate CA and if they successfully take the constitution making process to a logical end, despite the objection of the Supreme Court, it would mean a political revolution. It would mean that the Supreme Court is not the final authority to interpret the constitution. The legitimacy of such a move will come through people’s acceptance of the reinstatement option, not by the verdict of the Supreme Court. If such a constitution is accepted by the people and if it holds the ground as the final and definite law of the land, then the Supreme Court will go. It will be replaced by a new Supreme Court which will derive its legitimacy from the new CA. Do you foresee a situation where the government and the judiciary are on a collision course, as happened in Pakistan recently? Ultimately, when two highest organs of the state are in conflict and one is not prepared to accept the role of another, the ultimate decision has to be based on politics, in the sense that ultimately the one who has the support of the people will prevail. This is something which is beyond the law. If there is a situation whereby the Supreme Court refuses to recognize a reinstated CA, and CA members refuse to obey the Supreme Court in turn, the final decision rests with the people. The people might express their verdict through street protests or through some other form. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43635 Shoko Noda is the country director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Prior to joining Nepal office in March 2011, Noda, a Japanese national, has served in various positions in the UNDP headquarters, UNDP country offices and the UN Peacekeeping Mission. In an interview with Rupak D Sharma of Republica, taken on the eve of International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, Noda talked about poverty situation in Nepal, progress made in millennium development goals and factors hindering overall development of the country. Excerpts:[break] Nepal has achieved a lot in terms of reducing the incidence of poverty. What is your assessment? I always congratulate Nepal for becoming one of the fastest climbers in the human development index worldwide. If you look at the data of last 40 years a lot has been achieved, which also includes poverty reduction. So far, Nepal has achieved six of the eight millennium development goals. And in terms of poverty, the number has halved compared with figures of 1996. But creation of jobs is still an issue. And if you disaggregate the available data you can also see inequality growing among different groups of people. Poverty reduction in the country has mainly been attributed to contributions made by Nepalis working abroad. Is the process of building economy through remittances sustainable? Remittance can play a vital role in economic growth and poverty reduction. But that money needs to be invested on people and not on consumption, which is generally fuelled by imported goods. So investment on education, health and the entire social sector is critical. So how long can we go on building the economy through money sent by migrant workers? Creation of additional jobs within the country is essential. There are sectors like agriculture and tourism, which have the growth potential. Nepal must create facilitating investment and legal environment for these sectors to grow. So remittances that Nepal is receiving should be invested in these sectors. You identified agriculture as a potential sector that can create jobs. Could you please elaborate? For example, in addition to growing vegetables you can also process them here instead of simply exporting them. If you export vegetables, the recipient country adds value to it by, say, processing them, before re-exporting them. Creation of self-employment opportunities are also important. For instance, Micro Enterprise Development Program (which extends credit to potential entrepreneurs) that we are running since 1998 has created 56,000 micro-entrepreneurs. Coming to MDGs, despite reduction in maternal mortality rate and infant mortality rate, various reports show that death rate among infants less than four weeks old and mothers of different groups is rising. What is your take on this issue? It´s not only infant and maternal mortality rates that show disparity. If you disaggregate data for each millennium development goals by groups, you start seeing lots of disparities. This is the same for the human development index, in which Brahmins and Chhetris are placed higher than other groups. We need to analyze why certain groups are on the lower rungs of the index. For example, literacy rate among Dalit women is only 15.8 percent, while average literacy rate among women is 34.9 percent and for men it is 62.7 percent. We need to put in efforts to bring these groups at par with other groups. What is UNDP doing to improve this situation? Micro Enterprise Development Program, that I referred to earlier, has created 56,000 micro-entrepreneurs of which 22 percent are Dalits, 36 percent are from indigenous groups and 68 percent are women. You just said literacy rate among dalit women is low. But enrolment rate among orphans, and disabled and street children is also low. You are right. But the key here is - how to expand the reach. For this you have to analyze the causes and extend necessary assistance. So we should not only look at bigger picture of achieving millennium development goals. We should also disaggregate those data and point out inequalities. Talking about inequalities, income disparity has been rising in the country. What measures should Nepal take to address this problem? Job creation is very important as it can raise the income level of people. In addition to that, assurance of dignity and inclusiveness are also important. It is unfortunate that Nepal is yet to finalize its constitution. But we hope the vision of inclusiveness will not be lost in the transitional period. How has the political situation, policy gaps and absence of elected representatives in local bodies affected UNDP´s work in Nepal? Of course the environment here is different than in other countries. But we also have to congratulate Nepal for coming this far following signing of the peace agreement. Of course it´s frustrating during the transition period because we don´t see that much of progress going on. But a lot of discussion has taken place on constitution and different views have been expressed, and this should not be lost. I also think fair and transparent election needs to be held soon. I would also like to advocate for early local elections because absence of elected representatives in local bodies has created a vacuum and this can erode democratic values. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43306 When the four major political blocks agreed on CA polls on Sept. 19, the issue of reinstatement of old CA vs. election of a new one was thought to have been settled once and for all. But the unpredictable Nepali politics has taken a new turn with renewed discussions on the revival option after UCPN (Maoist)’s proposal to Nepali Congress leadership that in case of CA’s revival, NC could lead the new government, provided Congress agreed to settlement of contentious constitutional issues beforehand. This proposal seems to have renewed the prime ministerial ambitions of senior NC leaders Sher Bahadur Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel. Republica’s Biswas Baral and Kosh Raj Koirala talked to another senior NC leader, Ram Sharan Mahat, for his views on the revival option, its impact on Congress politics and broader national politics. [break] How does Nepali Congress view the latest Maoist proposal of CA revival? This proposal is indicative of the inconsistency of the Maoists. Initially, there was an understanding that, if there is agreement on the contents of the constitution, then CA could be revived for a short period. If there was no agreement, we would go straight for fresh polls. We decided to go for fresh election once it was clear that the contents of the constitution could not be agreed at present. The agenda for debate should have been the form of national government, election date, composition and character of the new assembly and modality to bring the derailed constitution back on track. The latest proposal for CA revival has not only created confusion, but also shown how inconsistent the Maoist position is. It is unfortunate that party leaders are raising an issue over which the debate had already been closed. Will it be right to say that the Maoists have capitalized on the existing differences in NC leadership? Let us first agree that the Maoists are in the driver’s seat. They head the government and they are also the largest party, and Prachanda is trying to define the agenda of debate. He has kept everybody confused and has everyone guessing. His real intent seems to be to prolong the Maoist stay in power by keeping other parties engaged in such debates. As for the differences, they exist in all parties. Is there any possibility that NC could again agree to reinstatement? The question is not whether the CA should be revived or not. We have to go to election either way. There must be a fresh election by April-May (2013). The question of reviving the CA for a short while will arise only if there is agreement on the contents of the constitution. But so far, there are no signs of such an agreement. We cannot compromise on our basic premises, particularly on the issue of federalism. We are not for ethnic federalism, we are not for single-ethnic provincial names and we, unlike the Maoists, are for limited number of provinces based just not on ethnic character, but also geography, historical continuity and economic viability. We want to respect the people’s right to choose the province they want to be part of, in case of controversial districts. The CA is the process and a mechanism to endorse the constitution. The basic question is whether we have agreements on the contents of the constitution. Unless there is agreement on constitution, how can the CA be revived? At the moment, bringing the agenda for the CA revival upfront is like putting the cart before the horse. Do you buy the argument that CA revival is essential for amendments in the interim constitution to clear the path for new polls? I don’t. If the CA can be revived following political consensus, why cannot the same principal be applied for fresh polls? Constitution amendment by political consensus can later be endorsed by new parliament also. Let us accept that the constitutional process has broken down. The interim constitution does not envisage a situation where the parliament would be absent. There is also no executive prime minister. There is no constitutional way of reviving the CA or going to fresh polls. So either way, you have to take a political decision. So I don’t buy the argument that CA revival is necessary to amend the constitution. Under which constitutional provision one can revive the CA? Furthermore, the CA came to an end because of the Supreme Court verdict. Last time, the parliament was revived (in 2006) as a result of a popular movement when the people forced the king into complying with their wishes. No such thing is happening now. In their recent proposal to Congress for CA revival, have the Maoists specified a timeline? For instance, do they want CA revived for a day, a month? That has not been decided. But I believe even if we go for that option, the revival should be for a very short period. It could be five days, 10 days, a week, or two weeks. It depends on the procedural requirement to pass the constitution. Let’s come to NC’s internal matters. The party president and two of its top leaders seem to be divided over the issue of reinstatement. How has this debate played out in the party? The position in the party in mixed, in that there is no single opinion. There are people who favor CA revival and there are those who believe we should go straight for fresh election. The party president is doubtful whether revival is a legitimate way out. As I said, it had been more or less agreed before that if there were agreements on all aspects of the constitution, A could be revived for a short while. But at the moment, such agreements look unlikely. Therefore, that option was ruled out some weeks ago. Now Maoists are singing a different tune. What do you make of two of your top leaders taking up the Maoist proposal of revival? I cannot speak for others. But I think it would be foolish to fall for the Maoist bait. Under no circumstances will NC give up on its principle stands just for the sake of prime ministership. The issue of prime ministership is not a major issue. Any election PM will have limited flexibility regarding governance. It will again be figurehead prime ministership. Thus for the sake of this short-lived figurehead prime ministership, NC will not budge from its position on constitutional matters. Maybe the Maoist design is that by dangling the PM’s chair, they can make NC accept their political and constitutional agenda, which will not happen. Given this situation, how do you assess the likelihood of a breakthrough in the near future? Last month, we had come to an agreement. But Prachanda backed out. He said he could not convince others in his party and in the governing coalition. Prachanda says one thing today and something else the next. There is thus no basis to trust his words. We wanted to find a breakthrough by building on past agreements. But when Prachanda backed out, negotiations stalled. The Maoists have been saying that NC leadership would be acceptable only in the case of CA revival, not for an electoral government. What do you make of this? It is natural that Nepal Congress leads any consensus government. This is not a debatable issue. Like I said, prime ministership is not the main issue at present, one should not be dying for the election prime menistership. But as I said naturally, NC will make a strong claim in view of its size in the parliament and past understandings and agreements, and also in view of the fact that we have been successful in holding free and fair elections in the past. But even if it was decided that NC would get the leadership, who from the party will lead the government? Unless and until there is a clear offer of the position to NC, why should we propose a PM candidate? If and when such an offer is made, the central committee will make the final decision. What are the possibilities on the emergence of a fourth candidate besides the three who have been projected as NC PM candidates? We believe even you are in the race. First of all, let me make it clear that, personally, I am not in the race now. If the three leaders can agree to a common candidate, it’s fine. If they can’t, we are capable of devising a formula, and even producing a fourth contender. But personally I believe a candidate will be settled among the three. Now, I hear that Sher Bahadur Deuba is pulling out of the race. The signs that some kind of consensus is being formed is positive. There seems to be disagreements within NC on whether to take to the streets or still continue with the dialogue process. All options are open. But my point is: You don’t need to take to the street to change a government every time. There is also the constitutional way. Taking to the street every time will create a wrong precedent. The prime minister has been relieved of his post. Now he is just a caretaker prime minister. In this situation, I believe it is incumbent on the president to call upon the political parties to suggest a consensus candidate. If such consensus is not coming, he should consult political parties and based on those consultations, he must come to a decision. He should appoint someone who in his opinion commands greater support as the prime minister. The president should have done that long time ago. I hope he will still do it, as the situation is demanding. But at the same time, even to push the president into taking such an action, it is natural for the political parties to use pressure tactics including street agitation. Separately, NC leadership has been saying it cannot work together with the Baidya-led Maoist outfit, given its recent actions. Is that the case? On the question of replacing the present prime minister, the Baidya-led party and NC are on the same page. But we have fundamental differences with them on many other counts, like their current stand on Indian vehicles, cinemas, and foreign investment. We totally oppose these actions. On the basis of current inter-party negotiations, how hopeful are you of a breakthrough? There must be a breakthrough, but I don’t have much hope that it will be possible through political consensus. We have wasted enough time. Thus, as the guardian of the constitution, the president must act to bring the constitutional process back on track. Since the political parties have failed to arrive at a conclusion on the next government, on the next election and on constitutional amendment, the president himself must take the initiative to find a constitutional way out. There is also a view that contentious constitutional issues should be taken to a referendum. If there is no agreement on basic constitutional issues, a referendum cannot be ruled out. If there is agreement on those issues now, you don’t need to make them an election agenda or referendum agenda, which will be a waste of time. If you can avoid the wastage of time by agreeing on the contents of the constitution before hand, well and good. But if you can’t agree, either let the next parliament take the decision or go for a referendum. The Maoists have proposed that a new constitution be promulgated leaving aside contentious issues for later. This is precisely what we proposed before the expiry of the CA on May 27. But Maoists flatly refused and brought the CA to an end. If they now agree with what we proposed then, they must admit they were wrong then. They have no consistency and there is design in their every step. Their position keeps changing depending on immediate interests. How can you trust the Maoists? They say one thing today and another thing tomorrow. But if you can’t trust them, how can there be meaningful negotiations? Despite the serious trust deficit, the reality of the situation demands that we talk to find a solution. We cannot trust them so long as there is no foolproof agreement in the presence of witnesses. As President Ronald Reagan famously said to his countrymen during his negotiations with the Russians on SALT treaty “Trust, but verify”. The president as a constitutional guardian must also be brought into the picture. That is the reason I am insisting that the president himself must take the initiative. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43254 To raise their issues vehemently, Janajati leaders and intellectuals are mulling formation of a new party. Republica´s Arun Rai caught up with Dr Om Gurung, a prominent Janajati scholar, chief of the Central Department of Sociology, TU, and advisor to Indigenous People´s members Caucus of erstwhile Constituent Assembly. Excerpts: How do you describe yourself in relation to Nepal´s Janajati movement? By profession, I am an academic. But classroom theories only do not work. Therefore I have consistently been lobbying for the rights of groups including Adivasis and Janajatis, who have been historically marginalized by the state. As such, I consider myself an intellectual activist. What is the current focus of the movement? To understand it better, we need to slightly go back to history. In the pre-1990 period, the state adopted policies meant to forcibly create a homogenized society based on Hindu Varna system. So identity became the focus of the movement between 1990 and 2001. However, it was soon realized that identity alone is not enough. So the Janajatis fought for identity with rights, such as right to proportional representation, till 2006. But lately, with realization that such changes are not possible in the existing unitary system, the focus is on radical restructuring of the state based on identity. Janajati leaders and activists are preparing to launch their own political party? What could be the reasons? Actually, this situation came because of the very political parties that have dominated national politics for long. Indifferent to the Janajati cause, they even went on to dissolve Constituent Assembly. Disillusioned with this, Janajati political leaders affiliated to various parties, mainly CPN-UML, have now felt a need for having their own party. I personally take this initiative as a positive move aimed at ensuring identity and rights to the Janajati groups. But don´t recent developments, for example, differences among Janajati leaders over establishing a new political party, show that proponents of the new party are themselves not sure if this would be the right move? Yes, we have faced some hurdles. Also, at some point, I can see Janajati leaders competing among themselves to become the first to establish a new party. I feel these tendencies are quite natural during the formative stage of any organization. What makes a difference is leadership. Talking about leadership, intellectuals have remained a major driving force behind the movement. Now are they going to take up any leadership roles in the new party? Let us be clear about one thing. Political leaders, irrespective of their educational qualifications, are the ones who should lead. With no political experience, intellectuals can only play advisory roles. And they can give theoretical and ideological inputs to run the party. Inclusion has remained at the heart of the agenda of Janajati movement. So how is this party going to include non-Janajati community in it? Though the main focus will be on raising Janajati issues, there are other communities with similar agenda. I strongly believe that going beyond the ethnic issue, the party also should raise the issue of class struggle. Ideally, we have to learn from communists but they are only inclined to class issues, who tend to relate almost everything with the means of production. Overcoming this drawback, the new party should internalize dual issues of ethnicity and class and avoid being an ethnic outfit. It is argued that the proposed party does not have any clear ideological line and its sustainability is often questioned. What is your view? This issue of ideology has remained a major one. Essentially, a political organization is a perpetual institution. It cannot run on agenda only because the time objectives are met, agenda become irrelevant. But this should not mean a political party should cease to exist. The name of the new party has been proposed Federal Democratic Socialist Party. As the name suggests, the new party should chalk out a mixed ideology, touching on the principles of federalism, democracy and socialism. Lastly, how would you like to respond to those who argue that Janajati movement would lead to disintegration? I want to tell them that Janajatis are not essentially communal creatures. They are very much one of the nation´s own communities. They respect others´ individual identity. The issues Janajatis have raised are applicable to all other communities as well. When all communities are empowered, nationality and communal harmony will be stronger. Actually, tensions occur when communities do not have distinct identities and are denied rights. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43258 Buddha Air, which recently completed 15 years of successful operation, is one of Nepal´s leading airlines. It operates scheduled flights to 12 domestic destinations and Lucknow, India with a fleet of nine aircraft and employs around 700 people. As the airline entered 16th year of operation, Susheel Bhattarai of Republica caught up with Birendra Bahadur Basnet, managing director of the airline, to talk about Buddha´s journey, present challenges of Nepal´s aviation industry and the airline´s future plans. Excerpts: How do you evaluate the journey of 15 years? This one and half decades were really challenging. We faced several ups and downs during the period. Today we have become the leading airline of Nepal and succeeded in setting a milestone in the aviation industry of the world. When we started, there were many people who felt operating an airline was not a wise decision. Today, we have proved them wrong. What do you credit your success to? All the credit goes to our efficient team of 700 staff members and their hard work. I do not like to take any credit for the success. We strictly abide by the government´s rules and regulations. We contribute around Rs 250-Rs350 million in taxes to the national coffer every year. As a leading airline in the country, we make sure that our staff members are properly taken care of. We are increasing salary of our staff by a minimum of 20 percent. We raised salary by 40 percent in 2010 and 30 percent in 2011. We have a team of dedicated staff members; this is our biggest strength. What do you think is the scenario of aviation safety in Nepal? We have seen just one crash, which happened last year, in our 15-year history. Both the pilots who lost their lives in the crash had 6000-7000 hours of flight experience. The investigation report blamed human error behind the crash. In average, we are spending Rs 2 million for training of each pilot. We are working hard to make sure all our pilots follow the due procedures. More than 50 percent of our 60 pilots are captains. After the crash, we have added 11 pilots and spent hundreds of millions of rupees for air safety. The construction of hangar at Tribhuvan International Airport is also a part of our commitment to ensure aviation safety. How has been the return of your investment? We have invested whatever we have earned so far to expand our fleet. Buddha Air still has Rs3 billion to pay to its creditors. We will clear the loan as soon as possible. At present, we are operating three 72-seater ATR-72s, three 47-seater ATR-42s and three 19-seater Beechcraft 1900 D aircraft. The average occupancy rate of our aircraft hovers over 90 percent and we sell more than 50 percent of our seats on promotional fares, which makes our airfare cheaper. We serve 900,000 passengers last year. The number will reach one million this year. Do you have any plan to diversify your business in the near future? To invest, say Rs 100 million or Rs 1 billion, on new ventures is not a big deal for us. But, we do not have immediate plans to invest in other sectors as that might risk the business of Buddha Air. It will also not be in the favor of our staff members. What are your expansion plans? We are working on a business plan to procure Viking Twin Otter aircraft to expand our network to rural areas. We are hopeful that it will be materialized in 3-4 years. Rather than expansion, it will be diversification of our market. We have bitter experiences of operating flights on international destinations. We faced loss of Rs 50 million while operating flights to Lucknow. The Varanasi sector is yet to yield satisfactory results. The other option is to enter into Gulf countries. But it will be difficult for us to compete with Gulf-based airlines having huge capital. I think tourists flow to the country must reach 2.5 to 3 million a year to make our international operation sustainable. We have started preliminary study to operate flights on middle-haul destinations. But it will take some time. What is your biggest challenge at the moment? At present, we are on the peak of success. It will be a big challenge for us to continue to stay on the top. It will take at least some years to be established in the market and we are quite optimistic about achieving it. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43075 Tibetan exiles concluded their biggest gathering in four years on Sept. 28, with 31 recommendations, made with an eye on leadership change in China and in light of a wave of self-immolations by Tibetans. A total of 432 Tibetans from 26 countries had got together in Dharamsala of northern India, the headquarters of Tibetan government-in-exile, for a four-day (September 25-28) special gathering. [break] The meeting is the first since the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, transferred his political responsibilities to Lobsang Sangay, 44, who was elected the prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile last year. While China has ruled out any dialogue with the government-in-exile, former Harvard law scholar Sangay, in his discussion with Republica’s Purna Basnet at the end of the four-day meet, expressed his hope from the Chinese leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping. EXPERTS: Can you give us the background of the second special meeting of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA, the administration of the Tibetan government-in-exile)? Since March 2009, there have been 51 cases of self-immolations, in which 41 people have died. As far as the Tibetan Administration is concerned, we discourage drastic actions including self-immolations. But Tibetans are still continuing with it. So as Buddhists we are holding prayers for them, which is a way of showing our solidarity. We summoned Tibetans from around the world to Dharamsala to discuss what we could do. How could we show our support and solidarity for them? What activities and events can we organize to highlight the sufferings of Tibetans in Tibet, including self-immolations? Addressing these issues was the main purpose of the meeting. The Chinese government has blamed CTA and the Dalai Lama for the self-immolations. What is the position of CTA? Our position is very clear. The Chinese government can blame us all it wants. But there is no truth to their claims and blames. The Tibetan Administration has repeatedly asked people not to resort to drastic actions including self-immolations. When I travel to the US, Canada, Australia, when I write opinion pieces for The Washington Post, I have made it clear that no one should resort to self-immolation. But as Buddhists, like Hindus, Christians or Muslims, you pray when someone dies. We are doing this to show solidarity because they [the self-immolators] are doing this for the Tibetan people. Did you arrive at any kind of solutions from the special meeting? We have to highlight why Tibetans are suffering, why they are dying. That means we will have to organize more events around the world. We seek support from the international community to press on the Chinese government to resolve the issue of Tibet peacefully through dialogue. This time we didn’t debate the independence vs. middle way issue. Our way is the only peaceful way, the way of dialogue. There were altogether 31 recommendations, some on international issues, some on India and Asia, and some on Tibetan people themselves. On India and Asia, it’s important to highlight the importance of Tibet’s environment and the geopolitical importance of the area. But the dialogue between Dharamsala and Beijing has been stalled since 2008. What do you think is the main hurdle? The main hurdle is obviously the hard-line Chinese policy. From our side we are willing to engage in dialogue anytime, anywhere. But the Chinese government refuses it. If the Chinese government shuns its hard-line or is ready to review its policies on Tibet and engage in meaningful dialogue, we are ready [for dialogue] as well. Do you think Beijing will review its Tibet policy after the 18th national congress of Communist Party of China? If you look at the past 50 years, we are not optimistic. The Chinese government has always adopted a hard-line policy on Tibetans. Tibetans are protesting now, in what is their stand against 50 years of misrule in Tibet. The Chinese government has to find better ways to deal with Tibetans. We remain hopeful. Hopefully, the new Chinese leadership realizes this. With new people you want to see new policies. The new leadership, hopefully, will have a more positive view of Tibet and Tibetan people. What is your hope with Chinese leader-in-waiting Xi Jinping? His father Xi Zhongxun has some understanding of Tibet. He was a liberal-minded leader in China. But whether Xi Jinping is like his father is yet to be seen. In that sense it’s too early to say. We are hopeful but not optimistic. At the end of the special meeting, what is the massage to Beijing from the exiled Tibetan community? In some ways we are sending a message to Beijing that the Tibetans are united. We are in solidarity with Tibetans inside Tibet. The Tibetan cause will carry on even though His Holiness Dalai Lama has transferred the authority, even though a new generation of leadership has come. Our movement will carry on and it is in the best interest of both Beijing and Tibetan people to resolve the [Tibet] issue. That is our message to Beijing. Some believe the Tibet issue may not be settled through the middle path as China continues to grow as a strong power. What is your take? Yes, the Tibetan Youth Congress and some other organizations have different views, they are working towards independence. Our community is a democratic community and we have freedom of speech. But the Tibetan administration follows middle-way policy, which seeks genuine autonomy within China within the framework of the Chinese constitution. This is the mainstream view. Do you think the middle way approach will be successful? Yes, we believe so. If it fails, what can be the alternative? It hasn’t failed so far. But it is true that there have been obstacles. But if you study Northern Ireland or East Timor, dialogue always takes some time. So our turn will come. Recently, the Tibetan parliament-in-exile decided to change your title from Kalon Tripa to Sikyong. Why the need for this change? The term Sikyong was brought to use by the seventh Dalai Lama. When he wanted to hand over political authority, he started looking for a Sikyong, someone who could handle politics. Sikyong means political leader. So in the period between the seventh and 13th Dalai Lama, Sikyong ruled Tibet. Sikyong Tara Rinpoche handed over political authority to the present Dalai Lama. And on August 8, 2011, the day of my inauguration, His Holiness Dalai Lama said—Sikyong Tara Rinpoche gave me the political authority and today I am handing over that authority to Sikyong Lobsang Sangay. With that, the legitimacy of Tibetan authority continues with me and with the democratic mandate I have. But some say the purpose of this change is to convince Beijing to return to dialogue. There might be some secondary consequences; the primary consequence is the transfer of the political authority. Kalon Tripa means there is someone above. Kalon Tripa means the person who follows the decisions of the Dalai Lama. Now Sikyong means in political and administrative matters there is no one above him. That means Sikyong is the political leader and he will continue the Tibetan movement. When are you going to appoint a new special envoy for dialogue with Beijing? We are thinking about it. If the Chinese government indicates its willingness for dialogue, we are always ready. You have been the political leader of the exiled Tibetans for a year. In the period, did you get any feelers from Beijing for dialogue? We have heard different views. But we are yet to see a formal opening of the door. What will be the main agenda for dialogue from Dharamsala? A genuine autonomy within China for the Tibetan people. As Beijing does not seem to be ready to accept your demands, how can the two sides come to an agreement? We have compromised as much as we could. Now it’s for the Chinese government to reciprocate. Some say China is waiting for the demise of the Dalai Lama to bury the Tibet issue once and for all. What do you believe? On that the Chinese government is wrong. As per the vision of His Holiness, he has transferred his political authority, so the Tibetan movement will carry on. And we have invested in democracy; we have invested in non-violence. The democratic system that we have, we will carry it forward. Do you have any inkling of what may happen in the post-Dalai Lama scenario? It is too early to say. He is very healthy at the moment. It might be many-many years before we have to think about it. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43081 Suraj Vaidya, president of Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI), had busy days when the apex business body hosted the 26th regional conference of Confederation of Asia-Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI) in Kathmandu from October 4 to 6, 2012. The conference held on the eve of Investment Year 2012/13 was an important event for both the FNCCI and government. But given the long-running political stalemate, Vaidya, in an interview with Bhoj Raj Poudel of Republica, said he does not have much expectation form the Investment Year. Excerpts: [break] How did the international business leaders respond to Nepal´s present political situation and your investment proposals? Investors from the Asia-Pacific region got first hand information on the real situation in Nepal. We received a very strong interest from business leaders to invest in Nepal. Some of them even declared their immediate investment plans. However, the investors also expressed concerns over some of the legal framework, particularly on protection of foreign direct investment (FDI). In a nutshell, the conference was successful and responses from investors were very encouraging. Do you mean the conference proved fruitful in projecting Nepal as a good investment destination? Yes it did. But we must understand that getting investment from abroad is a long process. As a business community, we have convinced the international investors about good prospects of doing businesses here. However, our efforts alone will not suffice. The government too should take steps to win their confidence. For this, it needs allay concerns of the investors and make attractive offers through amendment and enactment of laws. I sincerely hope our government will take steps in this direction, so that we could materialize our dreams of luring their investment soon. Investors from which countries were eager to invest in Nepal? Investors from Korea, Taiwan and The Philippines have expressed strong interest to invest in Nepal. Others too have held business-to-business meetings, interacted with potential local partners and have enquired at length on areas of their interests like agriculture, tourism and hydropower. Do you think investors will come when there is such severe power shortage of and high incidence of labor unrest? We are pretty optimistic they will come. Being optimistic is one thing, but what about the reality? Yes, there are problems in doing business in Nepal. But problems exist wherever you go. We have sold investment ideas on areas in which we enjoy extra edge, like hydropower, tourism, agro-processing and mining industry. We have offered even fresh areas, in which no investments have been made so far. If we put our house in order and deliver on what we committed, I am sure those investors will truly put in their money in Nepal. Political deadlock is still on and much-touted policy reforms have not yet happened. What is the general psychology of private sector at this juncture? We are really in a painful state. The private sector feels paralyzed, for power cuts, labor stir and other structural constraints continue to haunt us and the government has not built an environment to announce meaningful policy intervention and offers to the private sector. In such a situation, what do you think should be the immediate priorities of the government? The government should immediately announce a full-fledged budget so that we can have a clear cut policy to work with for a year. This is crucial for us to make new business decisions and investment. We appreciate the efforts government made to prioritize mega-infrastructure and other crucial development projects. But their implementation has remained stalled because of the lack of budget. Given that no new policies and laws are possible in the absence of broader political understanding, we have hence been urging the government to take steps to end the present instability. The government should also immediately enact laws, reform policies, something which it has committed to the domestic as well as foreign investors in order to bring in new investment in the market. How you see the Investment Year 2012/13? Achieving its goals will not be easy. We are in a politically tumultuous situation. We don´t know whether the election will take place. We don´t know whether the constitution will be written. Even if the election happens, we don´t know who will lead the government and how the basic policies and laws will be framed in the country. Confusion on these matters could easily deter the potential foreign investors. For investment year to be successful, the government must also need to reform labor laws, restrict destructive forms of strikes that affect production process, work out reliable power supply mechanism for industries, and provide attractive incentives to the investors. Reforms on all those fronts are crucial if we are to market Nepal as lucrative investment destination. However, all those reforms are not likely to happen in the present situation of political deadlock. Hence, the Investment Year 2012/13 program does not excite us the way it should. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=43080 Benedicto V. Yujuico, president of the Confederation of Asia-Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI), was in Nepal to attend the 26th regional conference of CACCI. The Filipino investor, who has investments in countries like the USA, Singapore and Philippines itself, announced his plan to invest in Nepal´s hydropower sector also. Bhoj Raj Poudel of Republica talked with Yujuico on various issues pertaining to doing business in Nepal. Excerpts:[break] What is your assessment on Nepal´s investment climate? Unlike in my past visits, this time I found more enthusiasm in the business sector. Local investors were optimistic, had a clear idea of projects they wished to pursue and were more vocal in seeking investment in areas like hydropower and tourism, among others. This has encouraged overseas investors like us. Hence, I announced an investment in the Upper Maikhola hydropower project. How much are you investing? When will the actual investment be made? I am investing capital equivalent to a 25 percent stake in an ongoing hydropower project. As the cost of the project is valued at US$ 20 million, my portion of the investment will be around US$ 5 million. I am going to make the investment in the very near future. Why did you choose the hydropower sector? The demand for power is huge in Nepal. However, the sector has not managed to get enough capital and technology so far. Probably for this reason, I observed excessive electric shortages even here in Kathmandu. But what I know is hydropower is also a relatively stable sector. Beside, energy is a key sector of any economy; you need it to run every other industry and business. So, I believed making an investment in hydropower will be a more meaningful thing to do at this juncture. Are you aware of the challenges and risks of investing in Nepal? Yes, I am. There are structural problems in Nepal´s hydropower sector. The cost of production is high compared to the returns due to a number of constraining factors. It was exactly the same in the Philippines, where I had a project of 300 MW capacity till a few years ago. But the political leadership there showed the will to change that situation. They decided to make energy available to the people even at high cost. People also realized that higher-cost power is better than no power at all. I am confident the leaders here will show strong political will to change the situation. Hence, I decided to make the investment. In you opinion, what are the things that Nepal should immediately do in order to attract more foreign direct investment (FDI)? There are many areas needing improvement. But I have not much to say as the Nepali private sector and officials are aware of them and are discussing them. But I have a humble suggestion: Nepal should make its sole international airport (Tribhuvan International Airport) a bit more advanced. Foreigners coming here after a long trip look for a prompt and smooth immigration service and other facilities. Here, everything is done manually and hence services are slower. This makes the first impression of the country a bad one. I want this to be improved. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=42831 Monday saw the formation of the Federal Democratic Forum (FDF), an alliance between Madheshi People’s Right Forum (MPRF) and National Madhesh Socialist Party (NMSP) and five other Janajati political forces. Many see the formation of FDF as a response to the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led Federal Democratic Republican Alliance (FDRA) comprising of UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi parties in the ruling coalition. Republica’s Biswas Baral and Gani Ansari sat down with MPRF Chairman Upendra Yadav, a key player in national and Madhesi politics post 2007 Madhesi Uprising, to talk about the new alliance and its future plans. What is the rationale for the creation of the Federal Democratic Forum? What the Madhesis, Dalits, Janajatis and other marginalized groups want is social justice. In this day and age, democracy without social justice is meaningless. Only federalism with strong identity component and constitution with federalism and proportional inclusion of all groups at all organs and levels of government can guarantee true representation of the diverse Nepali society. Congress and Communist forces are not capable of leading these agendas. The aim of the new alliance is to bring in one place all the communities that have been historically exploited and discriminated against from east to west, from hills to Tarai plains. We hope to enhance dialogue and cooperation among these oppressed and marginalized groups, with the ultimate goal of creating a national democratic revolutionary party which will consolidate the agenda of a federal democratic republican Nepal. The Federal Democratic Republican Alliance has also been purportedly created to consolidate the federal agenda. How do you differentiate your alliance from FDRA? I believe the formation of different alliances is a healthy development. But the sole aim of the Dahal-led alliance is to save the current government. This is evident from the fact that the forces under FDRA are not ideologically united, as it consists of people of all persuasions, from communist extremists to former hardcore royalists. This is a coalition without a core belief and a clear roadmap. On federalism, take my own experience as an active participant in the communist movement. What I learned was that communism and federalism, and communism and inclusiveness, are polls apart. Especially if you talk of the Maoists, they don’t believe in federalism, inclusiveness, pluralism and multiparty democracy. The UCPN (Maoist) is advocating a path it does not believe in. Its ultimate goal is to capture the state and forcefully change the society. Let us be clear: the Maoists are not federalists. From the time of the formation of the Maoist party until the Madhesh Uprising, not a single Maoist document mentions federalism. The Maoists made a cosmetic ideological leap to cash in on the wave of federalism that swept the country during the 2007 Madhesi Uprising. Do you imply all communist forces in the country are anti-federalists? For communist forces to adopt the federal agenda, they will have to say they no longer adhere to the doctrines of Marx, Lenin and Mao. But if they abandon these doctrines, will they be communists at all? If so, can we say FDF will not include any communist force? Look, there can be agreements to work together on particular issues. But there is no possibility of ideological unification. What about the other mainstream parties? You have to understand that Nepali Congress and CPN-UML still believe that federalism was imposed upon them. Madhav Nepal has clearly said that federalism and Constituent Assembly were not UML’s agenda. In this situation the agenda of republicanism, federalism, inclusiveness and secularism cannot be taken ahead by communist forces, a fact which has been proven by the country’s recent past. It is in order to consolidate these agendas that the country needs a new social democratic force. You said that formation of different alliances is a good thing. But don’t you think alliances will further polarize the fractured Nepali polity? Instead of different political forces working separately, it’s much better to pool together likeminded forces to push particular agendas. Thus alliances also create an environment for strong articulation of issues and thereby facilitate political negotiations. But look at what is happening now. The NC-UML alliance says there can be no negotiations without government change. But the Maoist-led alliance is in no mood to relinquish government leadership. This has created a state of constitutional and political impasse, which has put the country firmly on the path of failed state. But neither of the two alliances seems interested in the larger political and constitutional issues. All they are concerned about is power. This situation must come to an end. A solution has to be found by following established democratic precedents and moving ahead in an atmosphere of mutual acceptance. What role will the new alliance play in breaking the current political and constitutional deadlock? Currently, political forces in the country can be classified under four broad categories. The first category comprises of Madhesis, Dalits, Adivasis and Janajatis. This is a group of ethnic forces. The way the three main political parties are trying to move ahead by ignoring these ethnic forces, the country is sure to meet with a terrible accident. The second group consists of communist forces, which includes UCPN (Maoist), CPN-UML, among others. The third group comprises of democratic forces, including NC. The fourth group comprises of regressive forces, which has started to make its presence felt. In the past, the people fought against the regressive forces and in favor of democratic republican forces, currently represented by the first three groups. Only extensive dialogue and cooperation between these three forces can result in meaningful agreements. WEEKLY INTERVIEW First, there should be an understanding between these pro-republican democratic forces on constitutional matters. Since the dissolved CA had completed 90 percent work on constitution, political parties and constitutional experts should sit together to complete the remaining 10 percent work. If a draft constitution is not prepared on this basis, there is no guarantee that even a new CA will be able to come up with a constitution. Such a draft will have to be circulated among the people and be approved by the newly elected CA cum parliament or parliament. The FDF concept paper is silent on single- or multi-identity based federalism. The issue of autonomous Madhesh province you have been raising is also not included. Can you tell us why? We have touched upon principles in our concept paper, not particulars. The principle is that Madhesh and all other provinces should be autonomous. This provision of federal autonomous states has already been included in the Interim Constitution. Now there has to be discussions on the nature and number of provinces by stepping on that provision. Look at the current state structure: Isn’t it a caste-based regime? One or two caste groups have occupied more than 90 percent of positions in bureaucracy, security forces and civil services. Their culture and language are dominant too. On the one hand, you say there are nearly 125 tongues, that there are people from many cultural backgrounds, and these are a source of national pride. On the other hand, the whole state structure is controlled by one or two caste groups. In other words, the current dispensation is a caste-practiced state. First, this state of affairs has to come to an end. Nepal’s multi-nationality and multi-ethnicity character has to reflect in the new constitution. When the center is well represented, the provincial states will naturally be inclusive. State restructuring at its heart should solve the problem of identity crisis of Madhesis, Janajatis and other marginalized groups. Some say the country will break up if all identities are recognized. But if you look at examples from around the world, countries have broken up because they have failed to recognize people’s identity. Take the cases of former USSR, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka or Rwanda. We have to learn lessons from them that neglecting the question of identity always backfires. The FDF concept paper provisions for federal states with the right to self-determination and self-autonomy. Could you elaborate? What we are saying is that the state should implement the UN covenant on the right to self-determination, to which it is a signatory. The right to self-determination is a fundamental right of all people; no state can deny it. Nepalis have not been asking for the right to self-determination as defined by Lenin, whereby a province has the right to secede. What they are asking for is the right of a people to decide their own future. We also want self-autonomous states as in the US, Canada, Brazil, the UAE and Switzerland. Each state has its own executive, legislature and judiciary and its own laws, but all of them cooperate at the center. What is the immediate roadmap of the FDF alliance? We have a two-pronged strategy. First, we will work to find solutions to pressing national problems. Second, we will look to add to our strength by bringing into our fold the political strengths of oppressed and marginalized sections from the mountain, hill and plain regions. The current alliance is only a starting point. We will continue adding to its strength until we come to a point where a new party can be formed from among like-minded political forces under the FDF umbrella. If we look at the history of political alliances in Nepal, such alliances soon break down. If they don’t, they fail to honor their agenda. For instance, the FDRA was formed with a four-point understanding between the Maoists and the Madhesi parties. But none of the four-point agenda has been honored. How will FDF be any different? The participants in the ruling coalition didn’t ink the four-point deal with a view to implementing it. This deal was only a means to power. It is true that even in the past there have been many unsuccessful alliances, but we believe we should move ahead by learning the right lessons from past failures. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=42417 Nearly four months since the CA’s demise the political parties are no closer to a breakthrough than they were at the end of May 27. If anything, the polarization between the forces in the government and those in the opposition seems to be increasing. Republica’s Thira L. Bhusal and Biswas Baral talked to former prime minister and senior CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal about ongoing intra-party negotiations, the opposition’s future plans and internal divisions within the party. In a recent meeting of four main political forces, you proposed Nepali Congress should take the leadership of consensus government. How confident are you of this outcome? Basically what I did with that statement was break the silence over this crucial issue. Congress leadership is natural too. It’s a different thing if Congress does not want to take leadership. But what we have heard is that the proposal is not acceptable to the Maoists. If the Maoists are really against the proposal, they should express their reservation in formal meetings, not declare it out on the streets. You have been in constant touch with the Maoist leadership. What level of opposition from the Maoists have you found against Congress leadership? I can’t say anything on this issue because the Maoist leaders keep changing their stand. Their words have no value. If I say the Maoist leaders said this, tomorrow they might say, no, we didn’t say that. Now, it has come out in the media that UCPN (Maoist) wants to lead the consensus government too. But when I asked them during our meeting if that was the case, they denied they were against Congress leadership. But the very next day, we heard the same leaders saying that no, they had never accepted Congress leadership. This constant change in position makes us question their true intent. Even within CPN-UML circles we hear reservations against Congress leadership. Some question the rationale behind Nepali Congress getting to lead every election government. No, I haven’t heard any such views. No one is saying we should take government leadership again. UML rank and file is reasonable. All they want is free and fair election. We are not a party that lusts for power and money. What was the main reason the four political blocks came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to new CA polls? The main reason is Pushpa Kamal Dahal. He was the one who had proposed the 11-state model four months ago. But now he is saying the model is not acceptable. If it was unacceptable, why did he propose it in the first place? Why did he put forth the proposal without proper homework? There was also talk of CA revival once agreements were reached on crucial constitutional issues. Why was the option aborted? Again, it was Dahal who said we should close this chapter [of CA revival]. He said the possibility of agreement on vital constitutional issues had evaporated. Now, if the biggest party wants the chapter closed, did it make sense for us to keep harping on the issue? Is there a possibility that the parties could again raise the CA revival option? How many times do we have to keep repeating the same thing? There is no point in losing more time by lying to the people. If they [the Maoists] want this option to be discussed, they have to present it in formal meetings, not publicize out on the street. There is a belief that Nepali Congress is unwilling to put forth its PM candidate. Is that the case? I haven’t asked Congress to announce its PM candidate. I haven’t raised this issue because first there should be an agreement on Congress leadership of consensus government. Without such an agreement, it is not right to ask the party to furnish its candidate. That said, it would definitely have helped if Congress could be proactive on this issue. But again, it is for Congress to decide. But wouldn’t the projection of a clear contender help in light of PM Bhattarai’s announcement that he would make way if there was a clear alternative? The issue of candidacy is not that important because the current discussions are over which party should get government leadership. We have not yet entered the question of who in particular should lead the government. So either we change the agenda of the debate and discuss which person is acceptable to all forces, or not raise this question at all. Is it possible that if Congress is unable to furnish a candidate, your party will stake a claim to the top post? An issue should be discussed only when it is appropriate. We have not discussed this option within the party. Let’s come to UML’s internal affairs. A big section of UML leaders under party vice chair Ashok Rai is threatening to split. How do you see this development? I don’t know of any ‘big’ section threatening to split from mother party. PS Gurung has personally told me he wouldn’t leave the party, and so have Dal Bahadur Rana and Kiran Gurung. These are the shining stars in our party who have strong hold over party organization. They haven’t threatened to split. But haven’t the likes of Rai and other Madhesi and janajati leaders publicly announced that they have been left with no option but to quit the party? I believe coming to such a pessimistic conclusion would be unfortunate. We call on all such leaders to rethink their option because the party still expects a lot from them. CPN-UML is also mindful of finding them respectable positions in party organization. I would like to ask him [Ashok Rai] to revisit his decision and continue serving UML in his capacity as vice-chair. Do you believe that the party will suffer losses among Madhesi and janajati communities in next election if these leaders do quit UML? The whole UML party machinery has said with one voice that future federal states should be multi-identity, which recognizes the needs of Madhesis, janajatis, women and other marginalized groups. Thus there is no question of us losing support among these groups. Without Bhattarai clearing the way, there is no meaning to discussing other issues. The goal is not to replace one person, but to remove a corrupt, dysfunctional and anti-national government. Your party has proposed a seven state multi-identity model. Is the model liable to modifications? Our party has made an official stand although there are many dissenting voices. We should give respectful hearing to all those voices. If the country is to go for CA polls, how difficult will it be to hold such a massive exercise at a time the Nepali society is torn not just along party lines, but also along ethnic and caste lines? At the root of all these problems is UCPN (Maoist). They are bent on destroying the country, by rending our social fabric apart; by destroying the feeling of harmony and brotherhood, decimating nationalism, barring growth of physical infrastructure, promoting corruption and criminalization. Their concept of new Nepal is a country in ruins. They have been responsible for the killings of dalits, janajatis and Madheshi leaders. This makes one question: For whose benefit are they in politics? The Maoists are after only three things: regime, power and money. They are ready to sell the country’s dignity to capture the regime. Till date, no other political party had rivaled the depravity shown by UCPN (Maoist). What we wanted to know was if free and fair polls could be held in such a polarized climate. You tell me, then. What is the alternative? Do you want to keep the country in a state of transition for years to come? The focus should rather be on making people aware of the available choices prior to the election. This should be a matter of concern not just for the political parties but every Nepali citizen. The opposition parties have been saying that the current government is the most corrupt in the country’s history. Yet you have not been able to mount a credible challenge to it. I believe these things take time, especially when some forces are busy selling false dreams to the masses. The Rana regime lasted for 104 years; the panchayat system lasted for 30 years. Thus even corrupt and autocratic regimes can last. If there is no consensus, when do you plan to launch a decisive movement? We are discussing this option. Soon, around 26 parties will get together and agree on a resolution against the government. That will be the base for a common movement with the single agenda of the ouster of the Bhattarai government. Is the Baidya-led Maoist party also on board for such a movement? Yes, they have said that they are one with other parties on the issue of the removal of the current government. They said they wanted to set aside the question of federalism for time being because it could foster divisions among the parties. It is also said that the movement against Bhattarai government has failed to gain movement as it has no bigger agenda than his removal. No, you are wrong. The goal is not to replace one person, but to remove a corrupt, dysfunctional and anti-national government, which has handed away the country’s key to outsiders. This should be the common goal of all people who love Nepal. On the basis of current negotiations, do you see any possibility of a breakthrough in the near future? I don’t see any such possibility because our faith on the Maoists has been dashed. I don’t see how this faith can be resurrected. So you are already bracing yourself for a new movement against the government? Yes, we are preparing for a decisive movement. Do you imply negotiations cannot move ahead without Bhattarai’s ouster? This is right. Without Bhattarai clearing the way, there is no meaning to discussing other issues. In the event of CA polls, what agenda will you take before the people this time? We will ask the people to vote for us in order to complete the unfinished task of the Constituent Assembly. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=42048 In recent times the political debate has revolved around whether the country should go for fresh Constituent Assembly polls or revive the old CA. The chances of new CA polls have increased significantly as the ruling Maoist-Madhesi alliance opted for the electoral route on Wednesday and as the constituencies for new polls continues to expand within Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. Republica’s Biswas Baral talked to head of the Constitutional Committee of the dissolved CA Nilambar Acharya on the suitability of the electoral option, the reasons behind the demise of CA and what lessons can be learnt from past failures. [break] You had a chance to watch the constitutional process up close as the head of the Constitutional Committee. Where did it go wrong? The main reason behind the failure of the CA were disputes between political parties on important constitutional issues, as well as divisions within each of the major parties. For instance, if you search for the reasons behind the eventual split in the Maoist party, its top leaders didn’t see eye to eye on important constitutional issues even while the CA was in existence. But like I said, this applied to all the parties. The other thing is that the first meeting of the CA had decided that the future state would be ‘federal democratic republic’, but the Maoists later said that the system should be ‘people’s federal republic’. Thus there was a big ideological and philosophical gaps on future political system. The composition of the CA also didn’t help. It was a hung CA with no party in clear majority. Nor could party leaderships represent the voice of their rank and file. Moreover, there were some procedural errors. One of them was not defining the basic principles of the constitution in advance. We wanted a new constitution, but were not clear for what kind of political system. Only once you give the specifics of a house can the engineer help build it for you. But if you haven’t made up your mind on what kind of house you want, that doesn’t work. Reading some of your recent public statements, you seem to have singled out the Maoists for CA’s demise. Is that the case? No, I didn’t imply that, although that is certainly one of the factors. Like I said, the Maoists hindered constitution making by changing midcourse the vision set by the first meeting of CA. Different parties represented different political philosophies. The constitution could have come out only if they had shared a common vision based on sound democratic principles. It’s nearly four months since the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. How have you evaluated the political process after CA’s demise? As we talk, this is the 115th day (Sept. 19) since the CA’s dissolution. The political parties have been repeating the same old mantra of agreement, but tell me in all these days have they reached an agreement on even a single core issue? This raises certain questions. Are the current negotiations being carried out only for public consumption? The other thing is unless you know which way to take, you can never move forward. Sometimes they say we should reinstate old CA, sometimes that a new parliament should be elected, sometimes they say, no, it is a new CA that should be elected. The legitimacy of the old CA went the day it was dissolved. Its legitimacy diminished progressively the more it was prolonged beyond its original term. This diminishing legitimacy reached a zero-level on May 27, 2012. So that chapter is closed. You hinted that the current round of negotiations could be for public consumption. In your opinion did political leaders show similar lack of seriousness in the final days of the CA? It was a ridiculous situation. Could all constitutional disputes be settled, a draft prepared, suggestions sought from the people, the CA members made to read the final draft and discuss and promulgate the constitution, all in the same day? The political leaders were saying they could achieve all this even on May 27. It was a laughable proposition. Instead, the focus on the final day should have been on deciding alternatives to a situation of no constitution. At which point during pre-May 27 negotiations did a constitution become unviable? Right after the end of the CA’s original two-year mandate, I had briefed political leadership in writing that there could be no constitution if they didn’t arrive at some sort of an understanding on core issues. I didn’t get any answers until the expiry of the CA two years later. A month in advance from the CA expiry date, it was clear that there could be no constitution through proper constitutional process. On May 26, a day before the expiry date, I told the political leadership that no matter which course they adopted, there could be no constitution by the next day. I had asked them to rather concentrate their energies on the alternatives. Now that the constitutional process has come to a complete halt, how do you think the country should proceed henceforth? The Constituent Assembly is dead. It died a natural death since it could not come up with a constitution within the scheduled date. Originally, its term was only for two years; the final two years was only its extended lifespan. As I said, the longer the body continued to exist from the end date of its original mandate, the more it lost legitimacy, until the legitimacy hit zero level on May 27, 2012. The old CA lost all its credibility, legitimacy and legality on that day. The CA thus cannot be revived. Even if it is, and the revived CA promulgates a constitution, such a document will not be accepted. We wasted four precious months debating an alternative that was never even an option. Now all the focus should be on discussing new polls. This was an issue that should have been settled through political consensus. But the prime minister declared new elections without first establishing such consensus. Our constitution does not permit such unilateral decisions at the time of transition. I believe the decision to let the CA go without first establishing alternate mechanisms that would come into play in its absence came with a wrong intent. Ideally, the legislature-parliament should have amended the interim constitution to clear the way for new polls. In my view, we should go for full-fledged parliamentary elections to get people’s mandate for the next five years. Such a parliament should be allowed to function as CA for a certain period, say six or nine months. But the parliament should be allowed to decide which six- or ninth-month period of its term it wishes to function as a CA. This is important because if we say the body should function as CA for first six months or the second six months of its existence, it might not get a chance to complete needed homework on new constitution. But even for new election the interim constitution needs to be amended. The political parties have been saying that one of the options could be a very limited extension of CA, say for a day, to clear the constitutional hurdles. What is wrong with this argument? Look, what is dead is dead. If you are to revive the old body for a day, what stops you from reviving it for a year? If you are arguing that the CA should be revived to ratify political agreements on contentious issues, then we will not be making a constitution through the Constituent Assembly. It will be a constitution prepared from outside the CA mechanism and lack legitimacy. But doesn’t CA’s revival make sense when 90 percent of constitution making, we are told, has already been completed? Who says 90 percent work has been completed? As the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee in the CA, I can tell you that is not the case. The political leaders had been saying that 90 percent work on constitution had already been completed at the end of the CA’s original two-year tenure. What I would like to ask them is: If you haven’t reached an agreement on any of the core issues, does it really matter what percent of subsidiary work has been completed? There has been no definite agreement on form of government, election system, legislature and judiciary. Remember, these are all old issues. The parties are even farther apart on new issues like federal structure. Even after the preparation of the drafts by the respective committees in the CA, the drafts have to be discussed and needed changes made. We had a special committee to collect people’s opinion on agreed issues. This CA committee wasn’t even allowed to carry out its task. I agree that some of the constitutional work was done, but all these were easy tasks. All the big issues were yet to be settled. Thus it is impractical to say that you will revive CA for a day to ratify agreements on all these issues. Even if that happens, it will not be a democratic exercise. Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to a new constitution on May 27 was disagreements on federalism. How did you view debates on this issue in the lead up to the constitution deadline and what is your take on current negotiations on federalism? I believe May 15 could have been a turning point. It was on that day that major political parties had agreed on 11-province federal model. This had raised hopes that a draft could be prepared on the issue of federalism. So the agreement was presented to the Constitutional Committee’s dispute resolution sub-committee. But the agreement broke down within a matter of days, dashing any hopes of agreement on this crucial issue. In the current negotiations, there is great disagreement over the number and names of federal provinces. But remember, these are not the only points of disagreements between political parties. At the end of the CA’s term, there were 117 points of disagreements, and seven or eight points more on other related issues like citizenship, formation of various commissions, and on issues related to janajati and other minority communities. Of the nearly 125 disagreements, only 78 were over federalism. Also remember that the points already agreed upon came to be contested as we neared the May 27 deadline. Even if there were agreements on all the issues, there could still be disputes regarding even such minor things like commas and full stops in the constitution. There is no guarantee that agreements at the political level will translate into agreements on the final points that appear in the constitution. Thus it is misleading to believe that only federalism is a hindrance to a new constitution. Do you see any possibility of the political parties finding meeting points on contentious issues? I believe such a meeting point can be reached if we elect a full-fledged parliament for four or five years. But if you hold another election for CA, there can be no such meeting points. Let us suppose the CA had been able to promulgate a constitution. In that case, the political parties would have had to face election just six months later. As no single party enjoyed a clear majority in the CA, they would have tried to improve their electoral chances through their often competing stands on important constitutional questions. This is exactly what happened. A constitution should not be prepared with electoral gains in mind. This is the reason there was no willpower on the part of political parties to come up with a constitution. If instead there was a provision of election three or four years after the promulgation of the constitution—as will happen if we elect a parliament—such political maneuverings could have been avoided with the whole attention of lawmakers going into constitution making. Can the current government take the country into new elections? The parties can go into election only through political consensus, not through unilateral decisions. For new election, you need an electoral government. First of all, the prime minister should be selected on the basis of political understanding and an electoral government established. This government will prepare electoral laws, again through political understanding. The interim constitution does not hinder this path as the provisions in IC are already dead. In order words, if there is no provision for new election in IC, legal remedies can be found. This does not necessarily have to await IC’s amendment. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41864 Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai spent a night at Rankagaun, Jumla on Saturday. While on his way back to the capital Sunday morning, PM Bhattarai talked with media persons in Surkhet. Excerpts:[break] There are rumors that the president would call the parties for formation of a consensus government. I have heard the rumors. I am in regular touch with the president and there is no possibility of him taking any such move. The president would take such a step only if the political parties forward such a proposal to him through consensus. How far have the political parties reached with regard to forging consensus? Democracy is a competitive political system and it is only natural for the opposition to criticize the party in government. But at this critical juncture, political parties must work together to resolve the current political crisis. There is no alternative other than forging consensus. The government should be allowed to function independently. But the opposition parties want the government to take each and every move by taking their consent. This is ridiculous. Government should be allowed to carry out regular activities through normal understanding between the political parties. At a time where everybody is talking about consensus, would mere understanding be enough? Once the political parties reach an understanding, the issue in question could be forwarded to the cabinet for endorsement. The cabinet may then forward it to the president for final approval. But the opposition thinks that the president is the key to consensus. This is a misconception. Why have the ordinances forwarded by the government highly controversial? There is no other way than to run the country through ordinances when there is no parliament in place. The ordinances forwarded by the government to the president were drafted through consensus between the political parties. What is the purpose of your visit to remote regions of the country? I am just keeping my promise. After the Constituent Assembly election, I had made it a point to visit my home district once every month. Now that I am the PM, I have decided to visit every remote areas of the country. Jumla visit is just one of the visits I had promised to make. Such visits I believe bridge the distance between the government and the people. Wouldn´t it be wiser to directly help the people in these remote regions instead of making a personal visit? We should do away with the current centralized system. Personal visit gives the executive head an insight on how the local bodies have been functioning How can the current political deadlock be resolved? There are two possibilities - first reviving the constituent assembly and second holding fresh election to the Constituent Assembly. The political parties must first reach an understanding on one of the two issues. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41609 It has been nearly four months since the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, but the country seems no closer to a breakthrough on the stalled constitution process. The opposition parties have been demanding that the prime minister step down before meaningful negotiations can begin while the PM has been insisting that he will make way only when a consensus candidate can be settled to replace him. Republica’s Biswas Baral talked to Krishna Khanal, political analyst and the professor of political science at Tribhuvan University, about the deadlocked constitutional process, the role of the political parties and the geopolitical ramification on the federal project, among other important issues. [break] The government has forwarded many ordinances to the president, including the one authorizing the president to exercise his right to remove difficulties. How do you view this mode of government functioning? The question of whether the government is right to forward these ordinances and whether the president is compelled to clear them is a matter of political debate. But rather than questioning whether the ordinances were necessary, let us see it this way: The interim constitution had not envisioned a scenario of the cabinet of ministers dissolving the CA and declaring new polls. Election of CA for the second time is beyond the purview of interim constitution. I believe all the current controversies are the outcome of the May 27 decision to dissolve the CA. If the government was aware that the CA had to go, why didn’t it prepare for new CA polls? After all, the Supreme Court had said six months in advance that the CA could not be extended beyond May 27. The government should have had plans to clear the constitutional hurdles in case there was no constitution by May 27. But the government has decided to take the easy route of ordinances. We have to see the ordinances in the context of the dissolution of CA. If we limit our debate to whether the ordinances being forwarded to the president are constitutional, we will get nowhere. Politically, what could be the government’s intent behind forwarding various controversial ordinances for the president’s approval? At a political level, everything that is happening right now is unconstitutional. Like I said, the interim constitution does not envision new CA. Thus the question of constitutionality of the works being carried out by the current government was bound to arise. It is true that the interim constitution does not give the president much discretionary power over the ordinances forwarded by the cabinet. But the situation now is that questions have been raised over the very functioning of the cabinet. In case of the ordinance asking the president to use his power to remove difficulties, the president can do so only when the executive wants to carry out its duties as prescribed in the constitution and there is no legislature. But the question is: If the president is now forced into exercising his prerogative to remove difficulties, what will stop him from using his discretionary powers again? That would set a dangerous precedent. How do you interpret the role of the president post May 27? I don’t see much room for debate over the president’s actions. In totality, his actions post 2008 CA polls can be interpreted as positive. Post May 27, the political parties have been trying to use the president to serve their own interests. But even in this situation, the president has been able to play a balanced role. I say this because the president has constantly emphasized the need for political consensus. He has said that he is ready to clear constitutional hurdles if there is consensus. This is the right way to go about it. In your view how can the current political and constitutional deadlock be broken? I don’t see any way out if we are to go by the interim constitution. The only way out is through broad political consensus on either reinstatement of the CA or election of a new one. There is no justification for reinstatement that is not time bound. What can be done is that the political parties can come to consensus and ask the president to exercise his prerogative to remove difficulties and revive the CA for a limited period. This can be done to clear constitutional hurdles for future polls. The second option is for the political parties to arrive at an agreement on a draft constitution by stepping on the work of the dissolved CA. Then the CA can be revived for a fixed period. But if the path of reinstatement is taken without first addressing the issues that led to the CA’s demise on May 27, it will create further problems. Is political consensus a must for either of the two options? Yes. Remember, in the lead up to May 27, two dangerous tendencies came to the fore. The first was widespread disagreements between the ruling and opposition parties. The second was deep divisions on the question of federalism among Nepali people. Rather than take the country back to that scenario, political parties should first come to common minimum understanding on new constitution. Although there were other differences, the major source of divide on May 27 was the issue of federalism. If the parties could have seen eye to eye on this issue, we would have had a constitution. PM Bhattarai had said he would step down only when there is consensus on future government. But the opposition parties are asking for his resignation to create an atmosphere of consensus. How do you view this debate? It is an old ploy in Nepali politics to seize on the weaknesses of the prime minister and exaggerate them to bring the government down. The perception among the people is that the disagreements between the major parties are not over major constitutional issues, but the outcome of the same-old power game. If there is agreement among major parties, they can settle on any one of the options on the table. But if such an agreement cannot materialize, the person who can create an atmosphere of consensus should lead the new government. It is not a question of whose turn it is to lead the government. The criteria for selection of new leadership should be the competence of the person in question. Are you saying that it is not necessary that the new government be led by Nepali Congress as per the five-point agreement? Yes. If there are no agreements on major issues, it really does not matter who leads the government. Rather the person who is seen as the most competent to settle differences in current political negotiations should assume government leadership. For such a person would have demonstrated his ability to take the country ahead even in these difficult times. Amidst the wrangling over government leadership, undemocratic elements have crept in through the back door. For instance, you cannot call the current government democratic. A government that is answerable to no one cannot be democratic. Such a government is rather authoritarian in that it exercises authority without accountability towards anyone. What do you think should be the role of the ruling coalition? The main issue again is lack of accountability. By embarking on the constitutional project, we were in the process of consolidating the gains made after the 2006 change. Now that the whole process has been derailed, shouldn’t someone take responsibility for it? The prime minister used to say that he would not stay in power even for a day if he failed to honor his promises. But he continues to rule even though none of his promises have materialized. Thus, first, the prime minister should accept his responsibility. He should accept the fact that he has been a total failure both on the constitutional and political front. If he accepts this, then the ongoing dialogue can take a positive turn. You mean the prime minister should step down? No, I didn’t say that. The issue of the PM’s resignation has been unnecessarily politicized. The prime minister is responsible for the current state of affairs and he has to take ownership of this fact. But I don’t believe the only way out is his resignation. There is no guarantee that the new prime minister will be able to deliver where all his predecessors have failed. I believe the only mandate that is still relevant is the strength of the political parties in the dissolved CA. The current ruling coalition was in the majority when there was the CA, but after the break-up of UCPN (Maoist) and Bijaya Gachhadar led-MJF, question can be raised on the government’s claim to majority. In this situation, there has to be a new agreement. Like you said, the dissolution of the CA was mainly owing to differences over the federal agenda. What in your view should be the minimum understanding on this issue? The issue of federalism came into controversy as we neared the May 27 deadline. I believe our geopolitical sensitivities played a big part. We could not take our sensitive geopolitical situation into account while discussing the issue of federalism. Under the current circumstances, there are only two options. First is to go for a referendum on federalism. Now is the right time to ask if federalism is the right system for the country. This was not the situation yesterday when we raised the issue of state restructuring, of which federalism was an inherent part. During the last CA polls, every political party except Samukta Janamorcha in one way or the other addressed the issue of federalism in their election manifesto. Since around 98 percent of the votes went to the parties that advocated federalism, we can say that in 2008 people overwhelmingly voted in favor of federalism. It was a kind of informal referendum on the issue. But since that CA failed to come up with a federal constitution, the question over federalism is relevant once again. The current coalition has been trying to present itself as the sole proponent of federalism. If that is the case, why can’t it face the challenge of a referendum on the issue? The ruling coalition has to practice what it preaches. Only Nepali Congress and CPN-UML are not blocking the federal agenda. With the support of the dissidents from NC and UML, there was a clear majority of CA members in favor of federalism. But then why couldn’t the assembly pass the constitution? If the political parties cannot agree on certain constitutional questions, it is the practice of democracies around the world to go for a referendum. If you say referendum is a costly exercise, we have already taken a costly road by electing a CA. So why the reluctance to bear a little more cost? But the current debate seems to be not on federalism as such but its aspects like single or multiple identity states and delineation of borders.   That might be the case. But what you have to understand is that behind the façade of debate on names and number of federal states, is the bitter reality that some parties have always been against the federal agenda. For instance if you look at NC and UML, although they have in principle adopted the federal agenda, their statements and activities put them in the anti-federalist camp. The number of provinces should be a non-issue as it will be decided on the minimum criteria for the creation of states. But by saying that 10- or 14-state model is unacceptable, it might be argued that NC and UML are presenting themselves as anti-federalists. If there can be a healthy agreement, federalism is still important for Nepal. But the kind of discussions we have had on federalism has not helped. What we needed is broader democratic federalism, not the kind of the communist utopia the Maoists have been talking about. I also find the debate over identity irrelevant. Can a province be multi-identity just by naming it after two or three ethnic groups? More important are issues of fundamental rights of the people and establishment of a sense of ownership in provinces. You raised the issue of geopolitics in relation to the federal project. Could you elaborate? What is remarkable is that up until May 27 neither the south (India) nor the north (China) expressed any reservation with the federal agenda in Nepal. But after the CA process ended on May 27, the Chinese delegation which visited Nepal clearly said that the kind of ethnicity-based federalism the country was mulling was neither in the interest of Nepal nor China. This means that the kind of debate on federalism we were having was disconcerting to our northern neighbor. Likewise, the Indian envoy to Nepal has said ethnicity-based provinces are not viable in Nepal. Even Prachanda said some days ago that the issue of federalism should be settled considering our geopolitical sensitivities. In my view, the CA was dissolved with the goal of halting the federal project by behind the scene actors. Are you implying that the CA was dissolved under the pressure of outside forces? The issues of priority rights or the right to self-determination which come under Lenin’s model of federalism were abandoned by Mao during the Cultural Revolution as far back as the 1960s. Thus even China has abandoned the model. It is not wrong to be influenced by Maoist thoughts as communists, but China seems to have felt that the raising of these sensitive issues would have ramification over the issue of Tibet. This is the kind of external political impact I am talking about. I believe that in the lead up to May 27, the international community wasn’t convinced that Nepal could go federal. Different forces were using the federal agenda to suit their own interests. Both India and China must have calculated the growing impact of international lobbies in Nepal as inimical to their interest, hence their heightened sensitivities. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41319 Bibek Debroy wears multiple hats of professor, economist, author and columnist. A graduate of Delhi School of Economics and Trinity College, Cambridge, Debroy is currently working as a professor at the Centre for Policy Research in the Indian capital of New Delhi. Rupak D Sharma of Republica caught up with him during his recent visit to Nepal. Excerpts:[break] You´re in Kathmandu to give a speech on economy in a federated Nepal. What are the basic principles that have to be followed while carving out federal provinces? No, I am not giving a speech on economy in a federated Nepal. I think that an outsider should not comment on Nepal. What I am going to talk about is the Indian experience. So how you apply it is for the people of Nepal to decide. But what are basic principles that we have to follow to ensure federal provinces become economically well off? In our (Indian) structure, it is largely about money, meaning collection of taxes. Firstly, one has to figure out how these taxes are distributed in a fair way. In this regard, one may confront two kinds of problems. One, how much of the amount collected from taxes will go to the central government and how much will go to the state. Secondly, how will the amount collected through taxes will be distributed among states. Fundamentally, what we do is - although we do not do this efficiently - backward states are given a greater weightage. This is because a relatively advanced state can tap other sources like the capital market and the private sector. In principal, this could be applied to resources like water as well, as that certain state has ownership over certain natural resource and rent can be collected from it. It may be difficult to calculate monetary value of such resources but it can be done. The biggest question regarding federal structure, from economic point of view, is allocation of resources, like water. What does Indian experience have to say about this? You gave this example of water but in principle this issue can crop up for any natural resource. So there will always be disputes, and there will always be relative gainers and relative losers. That´s why you need to have a system which can efficiently handle these issues. Although India has not handled this issue very efficiently, we, at least in principle, have set up inter-state councils, which play mediatory roles while handling disputes. So whatever is the eventual structure, you need some kind of a forum that can perform a mediatory role. You also need to ensure the law of contract is followed. What I mean to say is: if the dispute reaches the court and the issue is adjudicated, then the states should stick to the verdict. Problems arise when the unhappy party takes the issue to streets. Let´s change the topic. Indian economy is currently facing hardships, which in turn is expected to affect Nepal´s economic growth. What are the core problems faced by Indian economy? Indian economy is growing at a rate of around six percent, from around nine percent couple of years ago. Part of it is because of external factors, like economic downturn in the West. But the biggest problem is posed by delay in implementation of decisions. Could you please elaborate? Some of these decisions are linked to reforms related to foreign direct investment, pensions, insurance and all that. Some are related to subsidies on petroleum products and targeted subsidies. Some are linked to reducing public expenditure and bringing down fiscal deficits. Some of the problems are related to passing legislations that are pending as the parliament is not functioning properly, while others are related to procedures like land acquisition and environmental clearances. So there is a whole package of problems, which is hitting investment hard and creating uncertainty. These uncertainties will not be resolved until elections are held. Because of these problems Standard & Poor´s recently warned to downgrade India´s sovereign credit rating to junk status. If that actually happens what will be the consequences? S&P is actually downgrading the rating for external debt. Although the country is not facing that much of a problem with regards to external debt, the downgrading will affect investment. In addition, Indian private companies that want to borrow from abroad will face problems as they will have to pay higher interest rate on credit. Lately India´s currency is also under stress. Since Nepali rupee is pegged to Indian currency, the weakening of Indian currency is causing Nepali rupee to depreciate, which has become a bane for net importing country like Nepal. How long do you think will this situation continue? Currently Indian currency is hovering at 55 per US dollar. And I think it will remain at that level, if you don´t factor in day to day volatility. Lastly, South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) has failed to promote trade in South Asia. What went wrong? Firstly, I´m very skeptical about SAARC and SAFTA because nothing significant will happen unless political issues between India and Pakistan are settled. I think the future really is in the sub-regional cooperation, not SAARC kind of a grouping. Secondly, SAFTA is only about trade. And trade volume is determined by cross-border investments and visa regimes. Until there are improvements in these areas trade will not take off. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41178 In the aftermath of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on May 27 without a new constitution, various options have been floated to take the constitutional process ahead. Among them are reinstatement of the dissolved CA, election of new CA and election of new parliament that will function as CA for a time being. Meanwhile, the inter-party bitterness resulting from CA’s failure continues to mar trust-building efforts. Republica’s Biswas Baral talked to former Chairman of the Constituent Assembly Subas Chandra Nembang about the causes behind the CA’s demise, the legal ground for new polls and the ways to end the current political and constitutional crisis. [break] Let us start with the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. When we talked to you just 20 days before the May 27 constitution deadline, you were confident there was going to be a constitution. As someone closely involved in constitution-making, what do you think went wrong? I was hopeful because I was closely monitoring inter-party dialogues. The CA members had worked hard to prepare the groundwork for the promulgation of the constitution by May 27. If the political parties had stepped on that ground, a timely constitution was very likely. Indeed, on May 15, the political parties had come to agreements on core issues. Thus my optimism was not unfounded. Unfortunately, the May 15 agreement soon broke down. But efforts for some kind of agreement continued right until the D-day. Even on May 27, the parties had assured me they would be able to work out some solution. But when the expected agreement didn’t materialize, the CA was dissolved without promulgating a constitution. I had even presented alternatives. In one, I had proposed that a constitution be promulgated by incorporating the issues that had already been settled, while the few remaining ones could be decided in the future by a modified parliament. All parties had expressed their support for this proposal. But at the last minute, they declined to accept it as well. What happened on May 27? I can just tell you that the political parties could not come to an agreement. The May 15 agreement broke down on the issue of state restructuring. On May 27 too, the same issue led to the CA’s demise. There were rumors in the media that the parties had come to tentative agreement on this issue early on May 27. But by the time they approached me in Singadurbar, the agreement had broken down. A section of former lawmakers have said that your proposal of truncated constitution which left aside some important issues to be decided by a modified parliament made parties less willing to compromise immediately. How do you respond to this charge? This is yet another hypothesis among the many that have cropped up regarding CA’s dissolution. My proposal has precedents right around the world, most notably in Belgium. I had said that the parties should invest all their efforts in constitution making. In the process, if they were able to come to agreements on most issues, and only a few contentious issues remained, it made sense to promulgate a constitution with the agreements at hand rather than ditch the whole process over a few points of disagreements. If such a constitution could be promulgated on May 27, my idea was that the modified parliament, which would have the same lawmakers, could settle the remaining issues. You tell me what is wrong with this line of belief. But isn’t it possible that the parties took it a little easy after you gave them some breathing space? If we had been able to promulgate a constitution on May 27, all the positive developments since 2006 could have been consolidated. Now you can see what happened when, instead of agreeing to my proposal, the prime minister announced new polls. This has now put the country into a situation of total constitutional vacuum. Compared to what I had proposed, isn’t this a far more stupid option? Some also believe you failed in your duty by not calling the CA into session on the night of May 27. The Constituent Assembly, according to its regulation, does not sit without any ‘business’. Second, I was in no position to summon the CA into session without the political parties first coming to agreements on important issues. Another point is that the government had declared new elections well before the CA’s midnight deadline. Thus the problem was not my failure to convene a CA, but lack of political consensus on important issues. As someone from the legal field, how did you see Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s announcement of new CA polls even before the clock had struck 12 on May 27? I had expressed my reservation with this option well before May 27. And when I realized that the room for consensus was narrowing, I had said on May 27 that election could be an option. But when you talk of elections, there are both constitutional and political issues at play. On the political front, I asked them how they would go to the people with the proposal of another CA? The situation on May 27 was that there were agreements on most issues with disagreements on only a few issues. If we failed to promulgate a constitution from this advantageous position, arrived at after the expenditure of considerable time and money, how could they go to the people asking for another CA? I had cautioned the major parties that they think about this option long and hard and if they had to follow this course, they do so through broad political consensus and amendment of the interim constitution. This would have solved both political and constitutional problems. On the legal front, I had told them they could not go for CA polls on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision ruling out further extension. But even the apex court decision gave the government the room to carry out “essential tasks” vis-à-vis a new constitution, which meant that elections were possible if the legal hurdles could be cleared. The situation is, as the interim constitution does not provision for new CA polls, the document has to be amended many times. On the days leading up to May 27, I had repeatedly called the legislature-parliament into session with a view to finding solutions through that route. If the government had forwarded an amendment bill to interim constitution and if the bill had been passed, it would have cleared the hurdle for another CA poll. Initially, the major parties had accepted this proposal, but in the end, it too was rejected. Before May 27 Nepali Congress and CPN-UML had vehemently opposed any extension of Constituent Assembly. But now, the leaderships of the two parties seem open to the option of CA’s reinstatement. Is their demand legally sound? This is the time when we have dismantled due process. The interim constitution envisions a constitution through a Constituent Assembly. It doesn’t envision a scenario where the elected Constituent Assembly has to be dissolved without promulgating a constitution. I had warned the parties that if there was no constitution by May 27, it would create a dangerous constitutional vacuum at a time when the country was already going through a difficult transition. The interim constitution says that all the gains made so far in various democratic movements and revolutions will be consolidated by the constitution promulgated through Constituent Assembly. This constitution would replace the interim constitution. The interim constitution also clearly says that the work of the Constituent Assembly would be completed only when there is a constitution. Nowhere does the interim constitution mention what should be done if the elected CA is not able to come up with a constitution. As no alternative will be in accordance with the interim constitution, there is no alternative to taking a political decision. But while making such a political decision, the parties have to remember that the interim constitution is still operational. Even though its soul might have died with the CA’s demise, its essence remains. Therefore the political decision has to step on the letter and spirit of the interim constitution. The political decision has to be such that the whole process can be brought back on track through that one decision. The decision, made by adhering to the provisions in the interim constitution as far as possible, will lay the foundation of consensus government, peace and constitution. Are there any other alternative to break the impasse? Some believe that the way out is through ordinances, but ordinances cannot be used to amend constitution. Others have advised the president to use his right to remove difficulties, but even that is not enough to amend the constitution. There is no alternative to making a political decision, for once, by establishing broad political consensus. Without consensus, the government will face political and constitutional hurdles every step of the way. This will take the country on the path of violence. The CA could not come up with a constitution in four years. On what basis do people believe that a new CA will fare any better? Like I said, all political parties have to keep in mind that the country couldn’t have a constitution even though agreements had been reached on most issues. If there was broad consensus on May 27, we would have had a constitution. The agreements made thus far have been arrived at though the expenditure of a lot of blood and sweat. We should not let this hard work go down the drain. The peace and constitution process must be completed by stepping on our achievements so far. For instance, what will happen if we go for new polls? Will the achievements so far be taken into consideration or will we be mired even deeper in the crisis? In order to devise a way out, we have to consider past agreements and experiences as well as the interim constitution. We should not underestimate the value of the interim constitution which played such a vital role in the management of the decade-long civil war. It is a major achievement of the political process starting 2005. But won’t the same issues that led to CA’s dissolution be obstacles for the new CA as well? Absolutely, they will. Therefore, if there is no political understand among the parties at one level, there will be big disagreements on either option, of reinstatement and new polls. We missed a new constitution by a whisker on May 27. If we are to take the process back to zero, the task will be that much harder. This was the reason I was among those in favor of outlining the bottom-line of the constitution in the interim constitution, as happened in South Africa. But people started questioning: Is it right to place such hurdles on the powers of a sovereign Constituent Assembly? Our proposal was dropped. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41144 With the UML leadership having replied to the demands of the dissident Janjati leaders Monday, the latter are in the final stages of taking a decision -- either to remain in the party or quit. In this context, UML Central Committee member Rakam Chemjong, one of the dissident leaders, spoke to Republica´s Gani Ansari on Monday on the party´s response. Excerpts: [break] How have you taken the written response by party chairman Jhalanath Khanal to the concerns of dissident leaders? Though it is a good thing to see party´s response, the chairman´s explanation hasn´t addressed our demands. So, what had you expected the party chairman to include in the response? The crux of the nine-point demand [of the dissident leaders] is that federal states must be formed based on single identity and a new constitution should be promulgated guaranteeing federalism. A new constitution should be promulgated by reviving the CA but the chairman´s response does not have clear mention of it. I think our fundamental concerns have not been addressed. The leadership has rejected our demands, so the problem remains. How do you think that the problems should be resolved? There are two ways. First, we [dissident leaders] should remain in the party by sticking to our demands and should accept party´s formal decisions. Second, the our demands should be taken to the lower units of the party, but the party doesn´t agree with this idea. Your party chairman claims that you (dissident leaders) had accepted that federal units would be formed on a multi-ethnic, multi-language and multi-culture basis. What do you say about this? We have never demanded that the federal units should be carved on the basis of single ethnicity, our demand is that the federal units should be named on the basis of single ethnicity. Although the names of federal units will be based on single ethnicity, identity, language and culture of other communities will be respected. It does not mean that any particular ethnic group will be promoted in such federal units. Do you think the dissident leaders will be able to exert pressure on the leadership to agree to the demands by remaining in the party? First of all, our demands must be addressed by the party. It will be difficult for Janajati and Madhesi leaders to continue working within the party because the party is not even ready to accept identity (of Janajati and Madhesi), citing the need for multi-identity. So far, the state had formulated policies in order to promote dominance of a particular ethnic group. But, now we want the state to adopt policies to empower all ethnic groups. Will the dissident leaders resume their work in the party as the chairman has said that they would be reinstated in their posts? Whether we get particular posts in the party is not the issue. The main concern is that the party should address our issues. I don´t think any leader will resume work in the party if the issues are not addressed by the party. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=40972 When Mega Bank was launched about two years ago, its CEO Anil Shah, declared the bank´s was to become Nepal´s leading financial institution by 2015. Since then the bank has focused on growth by targeting the rural population, small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), and people at “the bottom of the pyramid”. Republica´s Emilia Terzon spoke to Shah about the bank´s ongoing performance. Excerpts: This month commercial banks announced net profit increase of 12 percent. How does Mega Bank´s growth compare? Because our base is so small, the increment is in hundreds of percent. We are only two years old, so it is increasing exponentially. If you look at last year´s third quarter results, our loan growth was the highest among commercial banks. For a new bank that´s quite phenomenal. Are you generating that growth by taking on customers who have never used banks before or are you poaching existing customers? It´s a mix. I don´t think we have the luxury of choosing. At this point, our backbone is SMEs. The corporate sector is completely over-banked. We have 32 commercial banks (in Nepal) and they are all targeting the same clients. So we want to develop a new market. If you go down any road in Nepal, almost every house comprises one or two shops. Every one of them is a potential customer because they have need for cash and need to get finance from somewhere. Nepal suffered a huge liquidity problem last year. Are you still feeling its effects? We´ve come to the reverse problem now. We have lots of money and nobody to give it to right now because of low business confidence. That´s why we need to find new markets. Has the absence of full-fledged budget affected Mega Bank as well? It hasn´t yet, but it definitely will. It hasn´t yet because we are still running off the last year´s liquidity, but now with the government as it is and the partial budget, again we could face a liquidity crunch. It´s very possible. There´s been a lot of talk of mergers among banking institutions. Is Mega Bank considering a merger? We´re too new. We don´t need to merge for capital. If we do merge, it will be for business advantage. If we find a financial institution in certain region where we are not present with a good customer base, then we would merge. The biggest hurdle for me with merging is cultural. We´re trying to develop a certain culture here at Mega Bank which is quite unique and an open-culture. Merging with an institution that brings an injection of say 100 people may hamper my culture. In Australia, for instance, Commonwealth Bank is known as the bank of the SMEs and common people. What banks have you modeled Mega Bank´s culture off? We look at the ICICI bank in India. That´s very much in line with the philosophy that we have. Commonwealth Bank is also there. Maybank in Malaysia is another one. In June you announced Mega Bank was looking into an alliance with Asian banks. Have you formed any relationships yet? We have not entered into any alliances yet but we are looking at it. This is for a simple reason: we haven´t even had an IPO [initial public offering] yet. Before we go out and look at alliance partners, we need to be a full-fledged bank. We have to be publicly listed. What banks and countries would you look most seriously at for an alliance? I would look at Indian and Chinese banks. There´s a lot of synergy not only in the way we do business but also the opportunities. A lot of projects that come into Nepal will be funded by India or joint ventures with China. What do you see as the biggest challenge to the banking sector in Nepal in 2012? People. We do not have the depth of quality people that we require for the growth and the plans we have. It´s not that we don´t have the youth, but they are going to Australia, US, Europe, and now even Qatar, Korea, and Malaysia. The brains are going abroad. This is going to be (a problem) for every sector and not just banking. How do you give people a different incentive to stay and work in Nepal? You have to give them “name and money”. If you go overseas, you can earn lots of money and all, but if you stay here you can make a name. We give good salaries and good bonuses, and you can also stay and be with your family. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=40724 With the agreement among the four major political forces to restart the integration process on September 6, the peace process seems to have entered a decisive stage. Obstructed for the last two months by Maoist ex-combatants unhappy with strict selection criteria for integration into Nepal Army, Monday’s agreement lays out a more dignified integration path by relaxing certain entry criteria. Biswas Baral spoke to Balananda Sharma, Coordinator of the Special Committee (for supervision‚ integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants) about how the rest of the integration will proceed, the revised criteria and likely hurdles to the process. [break] Monday’s agreement seems to have opened the way for conclusion of the integration process. Can you brief us on the developments on integration so far? Recent developments step on the seven-point agreement between the four political forces on November 1, 2011, which laid out three paths of integration, voluntary retirement and rehabilitation before the cantoned combatants. It also decided that a maximum of 6,500 combatants would be recruited into a specially created Nepal Army directorate. When we presented the three options before the cantoned combatants, 3,123 opted for integration. But the process was stalled owing to objections of cantoned combatants on strict age and education criteria for integration. It didn’t help that in the aftermath of the Constituent Assembly’s demise, no dialogue was taking place between the stakeholders in the peace process. How did you arrive at a new agreement on integration now? In order to kick-start the stalled process, it was decided that the integration would be pushed ahead by setting aside other political differences. Meanwhile, the Special Committee started deliberating why integration had to be stopped in the first place. New points of view were incorporated from both the Nepal Army as well as the Maoist sides on how to break the deadlock. The work of the Special Committee so far was based on the basis of verification carried out by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN). But an UNMIN certificate is of no use while applying for government posts. On the other hand, the citizenship certificate is mandatory for any government job. This is the reason we decided to follow citizenship certificates in determining the age of combatants. But since it was UNMIN records that established the identity of combatants, its records couldn’t be sidelined either. Thus we decided to use information from both the documents to find a middle-way solution. Can you elaborate on the revised criteria for integration? Earlier, points of disagreements were over four issues: age, education, organization structure of the body that would take in the combatants and dignified integration. Let us first take up the issue of dignified integration. In the seven-point agreement the Maoist leadership accepted certain criteria for integration. If the integration moves ahead according to the agreement, we have to say that such a process is dignified. But some combatants expressed their discomfort at the measurement of their chests and stripping them off their clothes in public. We thus decided that the whole selection process would be done away from public view. We also decided to treat combatants on one-on-one basis. As regards the issue of age, the seven-point agreement stipulated that the age of combatants and the date of their entry into PLA would be determined on the basis of the identification certificates provided by UNMIN. The agreement was that those who had joined PLA when they were 18 or above would be considered genuine combatants. The recent agreement gives the combatants three years concession on the date of their entry into PLA as per UNMIN certificates. But the problem was that if we determined the age of combatants on the basis of UNMIN certificates, a big section would be ineligible for integration. Besides, we decided that age mentioned in citizenship certificates were more authentic even while we would adhere to UNMIN data on date of entry. On the issue of education, any revision of earlier criterion would be grossly unfair on those who have already chosen voluntary retirement option as they didn’t qualify for integration on academic grounds. What about the revision of the provision for a special directorate under Nepal Army? The special directorate was envisioned with the calculation that 6,500 combatants would choose the integration option as per the seven-point agreement. But now the situation is that even the 3,123 who have chosen integration might not qualify. In this situation, a special directorate is not feasible. We decided that, first, we will arrive at a final number on integration, and only then design an appropriate body to absorb them. Do you have any idea how many of the 3,123 combatants will be ineligible on education grounds? It is difficult to say. But we assume the number will be around 80-100. The integration process is to restart on September 6. How will it proceed? We will set off for the cantonments on September 6. The selection process will start by September 7-8. During the process, those eligible for integration would be selected from among the 3,123 combatants. Those ineligible or those who do not choose the integration path would be given the option of voluntary retirement or rehabilitation. The combatants would be divided into two clear groups. The Nepal Army will take the arms stored in cantonments under its control. Can we consider the dismantling of cantonments as the end of the peace process? First, we should be clear about what the term ‘end of peace process’ means. We may consider emptying of cantonments and state forces taking of arms from cantonments an end of the peace process. Or we can say that those who have been integrated should first complete their training and only then will the peace process end. As regards those who have already chosen voluntary retirement, they are still to get their second installment of voluntary retirement package. We might consider the distribution of such funds as the end. It depends on the context. The term of the Special Committee has been renewed for three months. When does its relevance end? The Special Committee’s tenure will end the day Nepal government believes it can settle the remainder of peace process on its own. But if the Special Committee is to strictly adhere to its mandate, its tenure might yet be prolonged. This is entirely up to the government though. What will happen to the combatants who chose integration but have been living outside cantonments? As there is no official data on the exit of combatants, we will go on the assumption that they are all living inside the cantonments. Whoever presents themselves at the cantonments on the dates we carry out selection for integration will be eligible. How long do you think the committee will take to end the process starting September 6? We believe integration will be completed before Dashain (which is two months away). The only remaining task will be distribution of the second installment of cash to those who have already taken the voluntary retirement route. Do you foresee any dangers that could still hinder integration and the larger peace process? One, there must be many who are against the current integration and voluntary retirement process. These forces could create some obstacles. Two, incidents like strikes and bandas that hinder our movement could also delay it. I don’t think there will be many obstacles on the political front as all the major forces are more or less in favor of the current process. Even the combatants have been requesting us to complete the whole process soon. The only thing is we have been telling them that those who were under the age of 18 during UNMIN’s verification cannot be considered for integration. They might create some trouble. But again, there are unlikely to be many of them. That said, we don’t envision a smooth ride either. No stage of the integration process has been plain sailing. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=40601 TeliaSonera (TS), a leading telecommunication company of Europe is a parent company of the largest GSM operator of the country- Ncell. It has acquired majority shares of rural telecommunication operator Nepal Satellite Telecom (NST) and is preparing to re-launch its Hello Nepal brand. Top officials of TS along with Lars Nyberg, CEO of TS and Tero Kivisaari, President of Business Area-Eurasia were in the capital on Monday for a press discussion. Samiksha Koirala of Republica caught up with Kivisaari to talk about the expansion plans of two different brands along with other telecommunications issues. [break] How do you evaluate the performance of Ncell compared to other different brands owned by TS in other countries? I am very happy with the management of Ncell. Our employees are also delivering as per our expectation. It is an achievement to be a market leader in few years of operation and we are positive about bringing more investment. Although the voice penetration has reached to 60 percent of the population, the mobile data is still a big issue. The major focus of Ncell will be on mobile data. The first priority will remain the quality of the network and we will continue working towards making it better. How has the presence of Ncell changed the scenario of telecommunications market? The two major changes is in quality and tariff. With our presence the tariff has gone down and the quality of service has also improved. What was the reason for acquiring another telecommunication operator at the time when your own brand is a market leader? What are your plans with NST? This is part of our market consolidation. Hello Nepal is part of our regional offering and it targeted at lower income segment. The demand for telecommunications service is increasing in rural area and with Hello Nepal, we plan to reach those segments which are still away from the service. In order to make the service affordable for lower income group, the service will be simple and the tariff will be cheaper. There is a need for regional investment in this sector and targeting lower end segment will help us cover larger geographical region. On the other side, Ncell will continue as full service, high quality operator. TS already owns two different brands in other countries and both brands are successful. We don´t want to have a monopoly as we believe competition will ensure better price and quality. Would you like to share the amount paid by TS for acquiring 75 percent stake in NST? TS has purchased 75 percent share from Cyprus based Airbell company but not directly from NST. The terms of this purchase are confidential and we can´t disclose it. Do you have plans to share infrastructure between Ncell and NST? Legally and technically, licensing conditions of both Ncell and NST is different. We are studying the legal and technical possibilities for sharing infrastructure which we believe will be beneficial for companies and the country. We are in favor of sharing the infrastructure with other operators as well if the government provides legal ground for it. What were the major challenges that you face while working in Nepal? Political instability is definitely not a favorable situation for the business. We have faced many hurdles which delayed our expansion plans. Our equipments were in customs for months which was a very bad experience for us. We are hopping the constitutional drafting process will be completed and there will be political stability and telecommunications authority along with other government body will function more effectively. Have you faced any discrimination compared to state-owned operator from Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA)? Problems are there and the process is often delayed. But while talking about discrimination, all I can say is there is no discrimination in a major way. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=40316 Kensaku Konishi, president and CEO of Canon South and South East Asia, who was on a Nepal tour, visited the authorized dealers of Canon in Nepal recently to discuss plans to expand market reach in Nepal. Kriti Bhuju of Republica caught up with Konishi to learn about the company´s future plans. Excerpts:[break] What is the purpose of your visit to Nepal? As I have been appointed as the president and CEO of Canon Singapore and have been looking after the South and South East Asian market since 1988, I came here to study possibilities of further expansion in Nepal. How is Canon products different from other products available in the Nepali market? We are different than our competitors as we produce lens and processor ourselves while other companies´ acquire it from other suppliers. Besides our products have the best image quality and we have highly sensitive products that can take better pictures even in complete dark conditions without using flash. What is the status of Canon products in Nepal ? Since the past few years Canon is doing very well in the Nepali market. The annual growth rate of Canon is more than 30 percent as the demand of camera is increasing in the Nepali market. Canon cameras here in Nepal are expensive, why is that so? It is very true that Nepalis have to pay a higher price for the cameras here than in other countries due to the excise duty and other logistic costs while in many other countries the government has exempted the excise duty on cameras. It is only if it could be done so in Nepal that price of Canon cameras will go down in Nepal. Why do the newly launched products arrive late in Nepal? Nepalis customers do not get the products here as soon as it is launched in the international market as it take 45 to 60 days for the product to arrive in Nepal due to longer shipment time. But we are trying hard to shorten the gap to prevent the loss of market share. Are there any new products in the pipeline for Nepali customers? We will be introducing Canon´s first mirrorless digital camera EOS M with interchangeable lens in the Nepali market in October or November this year. Besides we will be introducing power shot series with high optical zoom functions. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=40259 According to the May 3 five-point agreement between four major political forces, Nepali Congress was to get the leadership of the consensus government to be formed after the promulgation of the constitution on May 27, 2012. But since there was no constitution by May 27, there have been differing interpretations of the agreement. As the wrangling over the resignation of the Baburam Bhattarai-led government drags on, the country’s constitutional and political crisis seems to be deepening. Meanwhile, Nepali Congress is caught up in a bitter rivalry between Party President Sushil Koirala and Senior Leader Sher Bahadur Deuba. Biswas Baral and Kosh Raj Koirala spoke with Nepali Congress leader Narahari Acharya about the Koirala-Deuba rivalry, the party’s role in national polity and the way out of the current crisis. [break] The gulf between the Koirala and Deuba factions seems to be widening by the day. Can you enlighten us on the current situation inside the party? First, we have to accept that the working procedure of Party President (Sushil Koirala) is a little faulty. But one of the big problems of Sher Bahadur Deuba is that his unexpected losses in two elections (for party presidency and for head of NC constitutional party) have made him more assertive at all levels. The president may have been able to resolve the differences with a right working procedure. After the 12th General Convention in 2010, Koirala didn’t show any urgency in addressing important issues in the party. I believe Koirala felt a little insecure on some issues. Another important thing is that Deuba might have had some kind of gentlemen’s agreement with Girija Prasad Koirala. But there is now no body to implement these agreements. Even Sushil Koirala might not have been aware of Girja Prasad’s agreements with Deuba. Now Deuba is saying that he had such and such agreement with Girija Prasad but Sushil Koirala says that the problems should be solved through legitimate party channels. The Koirala faction has accused the Deuba faction of hindering party’s functioning while the Deuba faction alleges Koirala faction of running the party in a dictatorial manner and trying to undermine Deuba’s role. In this acrimonious climate, how can the party move ahead? Deuba is a rival of the party president in many ways. No one wants his main rival to be very successful. Thus I take this allegation of Deuba faction as apolitical. It is the job of the central working committee to make decisions on new departments. But the president retains the right to appoint office bearers of the departments in existence. I agree that there are some grey areas in the party constitution, but it is the CWC’s prerogative to define those grey areas. Now that the CWC has thrown some light on these grey areas I don’t see the rationale of pointing at the shortcomings in the constitution. Koirala is at a fault on insisting on his right to appoint new department heads while Deuba is wrong in faulting the chairman on appointment of department heads. The ruling Maoist-Madhesi coalition has asked opposition parties to finalize their prime ministerial candidate before talks can move ahead. Given the internal wrangling in Congress, will the party be able to field a consensus candidate? We have been asking the three main candidates for prime primeministership—party chair Koirala, senior leader Deuba and parliamentary party leader Ram Chandra Poudel—that either the three of them sit together to find a solution, or if they can’t settle on a candidate, let other party leaders settle the issue. Senior Congress leader Ram Saran Mahat has said that if the three can’t settle the issue, other leaders in the party can provide a way out. Even when there was the legislature, I had been saying that if we are to find a replacement for NC parliamentary party head Ram Chandra Poudel, we have to look beyond Sushil Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba. Thus, either the three have to decide among themselves what responsibilities each will have, or if they fail to do so, it should be decided by CWC. If that happens, I believe solutions can be found in a matter of days. The Maoists have been asking the opposition parties to field a consensus candidate as an alternative to PM Bhattarai. How has Congress taken this demand? Prachanda’s views are neither clear, nor have they been expressed in good faith. Still, if NC is to claim that it can provide an alternative to the current prime minister, it is natural for those outside the party to expect the party to put forth a clear candidate. If there was a parliament, we could have submitted a motion of no confidence against the prime minster. Since there is no parliament, the party has to make public the name of its PM candidate. But the issue of change in government is only one among many issues. It is wrong to believe that there can be no progress on important issues without a change in government. Okay, the prime minister is a caretaker, but the reason no progress has been made on government front is that we have not been able to decide on a process for the election of new prime minister. This process has to be agreed among major parties. Once such a process is decided, each party can lobby for a particular candidate. But until the time such a process is decided, even the resignation of current government is unlikely to break the impasse. NC has to be able to say that if there is consensus on its leadership of government it will carry out certain tasks. For instance, what it will do on the constitution front and on other important national issues. So what in your view is the way out of the current political and constitution crisis? We need the support of at least UCPN (Maoist) for a change in government. Without the Maoists on board, the current government cannot be changed on the basis of political consultations and dialogue alone. Either we have to be able to find meeting points between NC and Maoists. But if we say, no we will support Maoist government leadership, we have to clearly lay our expectations of the government. The deadlock cannot be broken on the sole basis of resignation of the current government. The main problem with NC at this point is that it has only a single agenda. But how will the government be changed? We have not settled on an appropriate procedure. If the president is to form a new government, the political parties will have to knock on his doors with a consensus candidate. The president is in no position to go at it alone. Thus, there has to be consensus for government change and a definite process for the formation of new government. What is the party’s stand on the role of the president in the current situation? So long as we are ready to follow the interim constitution, the president’s role is purely constitutional. But the situation now is a little different. The government has to seek the parliament’s approval to carry out its duties. But at the moment there is no parliament. Since the government has been unsuccessful in carrying out the election it announced for November 22, it can be said that it has been a failure. In this situation, it has to accept its failing and make way. But the major bone of contention now is not the government’s resignation, but what should replace it. This is the reason the caretaker government has continued in office. How do you take the opposition parties’ claim that the president should play a more proactive role to resolve the current crisis? Since there is no parliament, the president has by default a greater say in governance. The president’s refusal to sign the two election-related ordinances was not unconstitutional. I believe he is well aware of his limitations as a constitutional president. Thus he has not taken the initiative to form a new government. But since there is no parliament, in many situations the president has to carry out the tasks formerly carried out by the parliament. Sher Bahadur Deuba has been advocating the path of reinstatement of the parliament as the only way out. Is that a viable option? There has to be a political decision even for the reinstatement of parliament. There is no legal way for such reinstatement. But there is a little problem: The body that expired on May 27 was not just a parliament, it was also a Constituent Assembly. Since the CA was dissolved, the body which had a parliamentary role was also gone with it. Hence it is not as easy as it was to reestablish the parliament in 2006. It will create its own set of difficulties. Who will decide on its term? Who will take the decision for such reinstatement? Again, there has to be political consensus. The parties that commanded two-third majority in the dissolved house have to agree to it. This is one of the reasons the president’s hands are tied. If there was two-third backing for any candidate, he would in all likelihood have stepped forward to remove difficulties as prescribed by interim constitution. How have you seen the emergence of various alliances, given that Nepali Congress is also reportedly trying to bring together an alliance of like-minded democratic forces? There is nothing wrong in formation of political alliances. But the manner alliances are coming into being, that will not provide a way out of the current crisis. The current Maoist-Madhesi alliance, in the aftermath of the break-up of UCPN (Maoist), does not even command a simple majority in the dissolved CA. If NC, UML and UCPN (Maoists) come on the same platform, then there can be some progress. Deuba is a rival of party president in many ways. No one wants his main rival to be very successful. In the current situation, what kind of role do you envision for Congress? I believe the party cannot move ahead with the sole agenda of resignation of the current government. It has to be able to spell out clear alternatives. It has to put forth a clear candidate for consensus government and clearly outline the party’s position on the contentious constitutional issues. What is its view on form of federalism, on system of governance and on the electoral system? It has to be clear on at least these three fronts. Only when these two conditions are fulfilled will there be meaningful dialogue. You are also a member of the party’s Bhim Bahadur Tamang-led committee on identity-based provinces. What is the party’s official stand on this issue? The committee came to a conclusion that Nepal’s federal setup should be such that it addresses the issue of identity but at the same time also removes the prospect of communal violence (pahichan bhetine, jatiya dwanda metine). This is the party’s official stand. The problem of late has been the misinterpretation of identity as only based on ethnicity. Our proposal is aimed at addressing this question. We have outlined 17 ways on how to address the issue of identity in the new constitution. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=40089 Lee Tak Kin (Pitter), tourism entrepreneur based in Macau and Mainland China has been promoting Nepal. Lee recently visited Nepal to receive an official representative letter of Visit Lumbini Year (VLY) 2012 from Nepal Tourism Board. In an interview with Purna Basnet of Republica, he talks about his efforts to promote Nepal and possible investment in the sector. What was the specific purpose of your recent visit to Nepal? This was my third visit to Nepal and I led a group of 70 people including entrepreneurs from Macau, Hong Kong and Mainland China. We all visited Lumbini. Many people are still not aware that Buddha was born in Nepal. Even I was not aware about his when I visited Nepal for the first time in August, 2011. When I went back to Macau from the trip I began to think about tourism and started a campaign to inform people that Buddha was born in Nepal. As a result, many Chinese people are coming to Lumbini as they want to visit the birth place of Buddha. It is the matter of immense pleasure to me that NTB has appointed me as representative for VLY 2012. During my visit, I participated in business meetings and discussed about potential sectors for investment in Nepal. We were also lucky to meet high-level government officials including Vice President Pramananda Jha. Nepal has a huge tourism potential and many Chinese tourists are interested to visit this place. But, the visa problem is discouraging many tourists from coming to Nepal as they want to take visa before leaving the country. What sort of visa problem are tourists facing while visiting Nepal? My company is based in Macau and there is no Nepali Consul General. Interested tourist will have to go to Hong Kong for visa which is not convenient. Even, it´s not easy to get visa from Hong Kong because of the pressure of Chinese tourists. We have asked the government of Nepal to make the procedure easy but the problem is yet to be solved. How are you promoting Lumbini in China? We have a good business in Asia-Pacific region. We are working by ourselves to identify new destinations that can attract Chinese tourists. Besides we have good networking with different agencie and companies across China. In Hong Kong we are working with Alpha Travel run by Hong Kong based Nepali. My company is also working to bring in investment to Nepal as we are encouraging potential businessmen to visit Nepal. What are the major attractions of Chinese tourists in Nepal? What is the reason for focusing on Nepal? As a Buddhist I am focusing on bringing Chinese tourists to Lumbini. You know, there are a lot of Buddhist followers in China. There was a misunderstanding about the Buddha´s birth place, but know we changed their concept and they know Buddha was born in Nepal. The major attraction is undoubtedly Lumbini and they are also interested in sight-seeing, Himalayas, culture and landscape. Nepal also holds a good potential for investment. In which sector do you plan to invest? My first choice is tourism. First we have to bring businessmen as a traveler then we can explore investment opportunity here. I brought six businessmen during my first visit, now there are about 15 businessmen from Macau, Hong Kong and Mainland China who are showing interest to invest in tourism. Apart from that I am also conducting research for the possible business in real estate, hydro and agriculture. Fish farming, tobacco factory are also others ideas that I am considering for business. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=39843 The ruling coalition and other pro-federal parties outside the government on Wednesday announced the formation of the Federal Democratic Republican Alliance (FDRA) under the leadership of UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal. The alliance consists of over two dozen parties including Tarai Madhes Democratic Party (TMDP), TMDP-Nepal, Madhesi People’s Rights Forum-Democratic (MPRF-D) and MPRF-R. Biswas Baral sat down with TMDP Senior Vice-chairman and member of the Bhattarai Cabinet Hridayesh Tripathy on the same day to better understand the new alliance’s objectives and the road ahead for Nepali politics. [break] What is the rationale for the creation of the Federal Democratic Republican Alliance? During the dialogues in the lead up to the May 27 constitution deadline, federalism emerged as the biggest point of difference. This is the reason there was no constitution. Some parties were ready to accept the death of CA, but not to accept federalism. Those in favor of federalism were trying to arrive at a meeting point. At one point, we collected up to 407 signatures of CA members in favor of federalism. But even then, we could not save the CA. What we learned from this was that although the vast majority of the CA members were in favor of federalism, there were other spoilsports who would commit to agreements but back off when it came to implementing them. In this light, there are three main rationales behind the creation of FDRA. One, to guarantee a constitution through Constituent Assembly. Two, to incorporate the identity aspect in the constitution-making process. And three, to work as a catalyst for the creation of national consensus. The opposition parties allege that creation of such alliances will further increase polarization. Is that the case? Like I said, the rationale for the alliance is coming up with a federal constitution and federalism with identity component. If the forces that are not positive about the federal project understand that there is now no alternative to federal constitution and federalism with identity component through a CA proper, that immediately opens the door for consensus. There are only two roads for such consensus. Either we have to leave the federalism project or others have to agree to it. We have to understand that federalism is the necessity of the traditionally marginalized communities like Madhesis, Janajatis, Adhiwasis, women and Muslims. Others accepted the federal agenda only grudgingly. This group that grudgingly accepted the agenda started showing its real face in the lead up to the May 27 deadline. This is the main reason there was no constitution and the CA was dissolved. Moreover, federalism is not just about state restructuring or re-demarcation of old boundaries. At its heart are the issues of rights and identity. But some forces do not want to acknowledge this fact. This is where the real difference lies. This is the reason the federal project has become so messy. Those who have been benefitting from the existing state structure are reluctant to address the identity question of the marginalized groups. The reason federalism became such a contested topic was not over the issue of demarcation or nomenclature of states, but because of the reluctance of the old elites to let go of their traditional powers and privileges. From what you have said, the new alliance is focused on the identity aspect of federalism. But how do you address the capability argument? We have said in our declaration today that we will take the ownership of the works completed by the old Constituent Assembly as well as the old agreements and move ahead from the points of disagreements. Is the alliance in favor of reestablishment of the old CA or in favor of a newly elected one? The new constitution must be promulgated by a CA. But we have presented two options. One, election of a new CA and two, the option of coming to agreement on contentious constitutional issues, preparation of a draft constitution and its ratification through reinstated CA. This CA will assume the role of a parliament after which a consensus government can be formed for general election. How long do you think the government of Baburam Bhattarai will remain in office? It will make way the day we get a viable proposal for promulgation of the new constitution. Even now there are many forces that say the next election should be for a parliament as the CA has already proven to be a failure. But how will such a parliament be elected and what rights will it have? Until NC and UML can come up with clear answers to these questions, this option will not be acceptable to us. The constitution must come through a CA proper. Will there be efforts to broaden the current alliance? If you see our declaration today, you will notice that its signatories are representatives of parties both in and out of the government, all those in favor of a federal constitution. We are also in talks with other likeminded parties. We believe that all forces in favor of federalism will sooner or later come at one place. Is there a timeframe the alliance has in mind, for instance for political consensus or election of another CA? We will decide on this issue through consultations between the forces that are represented in the current alliance as well as those out of it. This alliance has not been formed with the intent of keeping out certain forces. It is through these broad-based consultations that we will settle the issue of timeline. But opposition parties insist that there can be no meaningful talks unless the current Bhattarai government resigns. How will you bring them to the talks table? When President Ram Baran Yadav declared the Bhattarai government a caretaker one, there was a mood of jubilation among the opposition parties who were convinced that it was only a matter of days before the government would come down. But they seem to have forgotten that any government that replaces the current government will be a double-caretaker government. What we want to know is: How is the next government going to be formed after the resignation of PM Bhattarai? The opposition parties cannot create national consensus by leaving aside the forces in the current ruling coalition. They are not even ready to hold talks on this issue. The other important point is that all the major parties are suffering from various internal problems. The reason they are demanding the government’s resignation is to try to divert attention away from these in-party divisions. This is also one of the main reasons we have not been able to arrive at meaningful agreements. The noise about resignation is purely for public consumption. What are the minimum conditions for the creation of consensus? First we have to understand that the interim constitution cannot bring political stability. It is merely a goalpost towards creation of a new constitution through Constituent Assembly. But at the current juncture, there is no CA. In this situation, there has to be an agreement for constitution through CA, for which we have presented two options. We can discuss both these options. If we are to go for reinstatement, we will need to settle contentious issues beforehand because we have seen how political leaders who were not even the members of CA were trying to forge vital agreements outside the formal CA mechanism. These players were determined to abort the CA because they didn’t want a mechanism that didn’t include them to promulgate the constitution. It will not be wise to repeat the same mistake. This is the reason we should settle all important issues beforehand, prepare a draft constitution and only then reinstate the CA to issue the new constitution. But if we are to go for election of a new CA, there is no need to settle these issues beforehand for the political parties will be able to go to the people with their agenda, both those in favor and against the federal system. Let us also remember that the opposition parties had been saying that they would solve the constitutional issues in a matter of days as soon as the issue of integration of PLA was settled. But when there was a major breakthrough in integration on April 10 and only some technical issues remained, the same people made a U-turn. They now started nitpicking on other issues, which eventually led to the dissolution of the CA. What can be the meeting point between the alliance and the opposition parties? There can be no alternative to federal Nepal and federalism with strong identity component. If the other parties can agree to this, there can be a meeting point. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=39813 Confederation of Nepalese Industries-Young Entrepreneur Forum (CNIYEF) is organizing Young Entrepreneurs Summit (YES) 2012 in the capital on August 16 and 17. More than 400 young entrepreneurs across the country are participating in the event. Samiksha Koirala of Republica caught up with Amit More, vice-president of the Forum and executive director of Lucky Group, to talk about the summit and the existing scenario of young entrepreneurship in the country. Excerpts:[break] What is the objective behind organizing Young Entrepreneurs Summit (YES) 2012? YES-2012 is going to be a platform for young entrepreneurs from all over the country for networking, learning and sharing of knowledge. Our objective is to provide participants an opportunity to build and strengthen their network. We will also be providing guidance to newcomers so that it will enhance their knowledge. We are hopeful that the summit will work as a platform to integrate economic and political agenda for spurring entrepreneurship across the country. What are the major highlights of the event? First, the event is for everyone who is interested in entrepreneurship. The event targets to provide proper guidance and network which is a must to become a successful entrepreneur. Through this event we will focus on taking the spirit of entrepreneurship forward. Theme of the first day of the summit is ´Inspire´ where successful entrepreneurs will share their inspirational stories. Along with that, we are also showcasing 50 different business ideas and products. The theme for the second day will be ´Keeping it Real´. On this day, we will feature series of events to groom participants. As a young entrepreneur, how do you evaluate the present environment for young entrepreneurs? The major challenge for young entrepreneurs is the lack of networking and guidance. No wonder a large number of youths are going abroad to work or are interested in service sector. At present there are two kinds of entrepreneurs, those who are exceptionally smart and those whose family already owns an established business house. Those who have financial back up lack ideas and those with innovative ideas do not have enough capital to set up the business. The event like YES will bring all the youth together and will show them the way forward. What are your expectations from the event? We want everyone, including students, to participate in the event. We are hopeful that the event will provide stronger link amongst young entrepreneurs. Along with that it will also help aspiring entrepreneurs with necessary knowledge and idea to start a new venture. Eventually, we expect some changes in policy level as well. Beside this summit, what is the Forum doing to encourage young entrepreneurs? CNIYEF is a forum of bright and talented young entrepreneurs and we are always dedicated in bringing innovative ideas and providing the necessary platform for young business minds. We are soon starting mentoring program for aspiring entrepreneurs. The Forum has already joined hands with top business houses for this program. We have started funding some of the projects already and would like to continue doing that in larger scale. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=39603 Turnkey Promotions is an organization established with the objective of carrying out research, marketing and promotion of products and services of organizations or producers who do not have ideas on how to promote their products and services in the market. Kriti Bhuju of Republica talked to its founder director Rebina Mulmibajracharya to know more about the organization and it plans.[break] Tell us more about Turnkey Promotions and how it works? Turnkey Promotions (TP) is an organization established with an objective to carry out research, marketing and promotion of products and services of any organization or producer. We basically take initiative for those organizations which have genuine products or services to be marketed and can be promoted. This will proved the organization or producer to explore opportunities with solutions for their bottleneck problem in the area of research, marketing and promotion. Along with this, we believe this will encourage and support existing talent to build confidence and trust and helps in business enhancement and promotion. What are the areas in which Turnkey Promotions is working? Currently, we have seven projects related to terracotta (ceramic) and workmanship. They are Potter´s Pottery and Garden Ornaments that deals with handmade traditional and modern terracotta used for both indoor and outdoor decoration, making token of love as per order, art n craft project for kindergarten students as knowledge transformation of pottery work, making miniature sets for psychological counseling and therapy, graden landscaping, old home and garden renovation and architectural design service. How will the organization or producer get benefited from TP? As we help organizations or producer´s product find the proper market through research and promote their products through different projects, those who are not confident about their products and those who do not have idea on how to market their products will definitely benefit. How do you promote the products in the market? To promote the products we have opened an outlet near Patan Dhoka where we display the products of producers and organizations. The products made of terracotta ranging from Rs 350 to Rs 40,000 are available at our outlet. Besides, we promote them through various projects as we receive orders from different organizations. We will also participate in the ´Made in Nepal Expo´ to be held in September at Bhrikutimandap. Are there any other areas in which TP is working? We have established TP for the tourism service and product promotion in Nepal and internationally with the theme ´Dedicated to the promotion of Nepal´. Besides we are also working on Digital Magazine promotion and also promoting culturenepal.com. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=39168 American multinational The Lubrizol Corporation on Saturday introduced Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) pipes in the market. Unlike other similar products that are imported into the country, Lubrizol Corporation´s products are manufactured locally. Marvel FlowGuard CPVC pipe is produced by Marvel Techno Plast - sole licensee in Nepal - and has a manufacturing plant in Hattimuda, Morang, said Timothy Earl Madden, managing director of South Asia for Lubrizol Advanced Materials India. Kriti Bhuju of Republica talked with Timothy Earl Madden to find more about the company and its plans in Nepal.[break] Tell us something about the company. Lubrizol was established in 1928 in the United States and has ownership of Berkshire Hathway Company that invented Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC). The company manufactures various types of chemicals required for lubricants, pipes and fittings and cosmetic among others. Why did you plan to establish a manufacturing plant in Nepal and how much did you invest? As many new projects in the construction sector is coming up in Nepal and it is in real need of CPVC pipes that can be installed easily we ventured into the Nepali market. We have invested around US $ 3 million (around Rs 270 million) to establish the factory in Nepal. Why should Nepali customers choose Marvel FlowGuard CPVC pipes when there are other CPVC pipes available in the market? Our product is different than other as we import raw materials from Lubrizol which is same in all countries. This means that the quality of our product is of international standard and we have received NSF International-- a certification which proves that it has no risk to public health and the environment. Besides our products are easy to install and saves time and energy, environment friendly, fire resistant, corrosion free, can be used for both hot and cold water and has high tensile strength. What is the production capacity of the plant in Nepal and what is your target sale? The factory established at Hatimuda in Morang in 140,000 square feet area has the capacity of producing 3,000 kg per hour. Initially we are producing 150 tons in a month and we target to increase our volume to 5,000 tons within 2 to 3 years. What is the marketing strategy for Nepal in order to compete with other existing products? We have already provided training to around 500 plumbers. We are planning to provide training to retailers as well and will also carry out mass awareness program to educate about the benefits of using our products. In what size are the products available in Nepal? Are there any other products in the pipeline? Currently, we have introduced the pipes from 0.5 inch to 2 inches and in near future we will have pipes up to 6 inches. The other products that we are planning to introduce in the Nepali market are composite pipes, industrial applications and fire sprinkler pipes known as blaze masters. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=38016 Sudhir Khatri is the CEO of Grand Bank Nepal Limited, a category ´A´ financial institution, which until April 12 was known as Development Credit Bank Limited (DCBL). Khatri, who has remained the bank´s CEO since its inception in 2000, holds a Masters´ Degree in civil and industrial engineering from Rostov-on-Don Civil Engineering Institution in Russia and MBA Degree from Da La Salle University in the Philippines. He has also taken microfinance executive education course from Harvard University and acquired diploma certificate on international bank management from Sweden. In an interview with Republica he talked about the bank´s performance ever since it changed its name and its future plans. Excerpts: [break] How has been the performance of the bank ever since it changed its name from DCBL to Grand? Last year during this period, the country´s banking sector was facing liquidity crunch. At that time, out deposits fell to around Rs 9 billion. However, in the last one period, we have managed to raise it to Rs 14.80 billion, which is a growth of over 60 percent. This is the best deposit growth the bank has recorded in its history. Likewise, our credit portfolio currently stands at Rs 11.25 billion, which a year ago was limited to Rs 8 billion. We are also expecting 100 percent increment in net profit this year from last year´s Rs 89 million. These figures show the performance of the bank has improved tremendously ever since we changed the name. The bank also introduced some new products and services after changing its name. How have they contributed in increasing the revenue of the bank? Yes, we did introduce some new services like Grand Remit after we renamed the bank. Using the Grand Remit, the bank is currently bringing in remittances from Gulf countries and countries like Australia. This has helped us increase our foreign currency revenue to around Rs 40 million this fiscal year from around Rs 10 million a year ago. In addition, mobile, SMS and internet banking services have also contributed in giving a push to our customer base. But what about credit growth which has slowed down? The problem of managing liquidity, which is in surplus in the banking industry, can only be addressed by increase lending. In this regard, we are planning to extend more credit to sectors such as agriculture, tourism, infrastructure and trading in the next fiscal year. We hope this this will expand bank´s credit portfolio to Rs 16 billion in the next fiscal year, while deposits are expected to grow to Rs 20 billion. There are claims that banks and financial institutions have not been able to extend loans because of problems related to capital adequacy. What is your say? Yes, the average capital adequacy ratio (a measure of capital reserves against assets at risk) of private-sector led commercial banks stands at around 12 percent, as against the central bank´s requirement of 10 percent. Since the gap between the regulator´s requirement and capital buffer maintained by banks is not very big, more than half of banks cannot go on issuing loans unless they strengthen their shock absorbing capacity by raising fresh capital or retaining large chunk of earnings. However, our bank has maintained capital adequacy ratio of over 18 percent, which is among the highest in the industry. So this gives us ample room to raise business volume. And by the end of next fiscal year, our capital adequacy ratio will hover at 12-13 percent. Currently merger fever has gripped the banking industry. Do you have any such plans? If rumors doing rounds in the market are true, the central bank will soon raise minimum capital requirement for category ´A´ financial institutions to Rs 5 billion from existing Rs 2 billion. In this regard, we have kept options open on merger or joint venture. Are there any other new plans that you´d like to discuss? Lately, our focus has been on reducing our exposure to unproductive sectors such as real estate. Currently, loans extended to real estate sector make up only 6-7 percent of the credit portfolio, while housing loans contribute to around 15 percent of the credit portfolio. We will also be giving priority to fee-based income, which are revenues generated from activities like issuance of letter of credit, trading, draft issuance, remittance, foreign currency transaction, sales of travelers´ checks and extension of bank guarantee. How will these measures benefit bank´s shareholders? We have been extending dividend to our customers in the form of bonus share or cash every year, except in the first year of establishment. This year we are planning to extend dividend equivalent to seven percent of net profit. Next year, we are planning to raise it to double digit, which is around 10 percent, if not 12 percent. This is important because it is our belief that shareholders should get dividend equivalent to yields offered by savings deposits. Lastly, there are claims that remunerations of bank CEOs are exorbitant and they get paid regardless of their performance. What is your say? Yes, bank CEOs are highly paid individuals. Even I fall among top 25 high earning individuals in the country. But we also make huge contribution to the state´s coffer by paying taxes to the tune of millions of rupees every year. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=37843 Dr Leon Ochiai (DPhil, MSS), a research scientist, led the analysis of large scale multi-centric, multi-disciplinary typhoid Vi effectiveness trials. Currently he is coordinating the VIVA (Vi-based vaccine for Asia) initiative, which aims to develop the Vi-DT typhoid conjugate vaccine and introduce the Vi polysaccharide typhoid vaccine as a pilot public health program in Nepal.[break] How effectiveness is the typhoid fever vaccine? The efficacy of the vaccine is 60 to 70 percent. That means 60-70 percent of people who receive the vaccine will be protected from the disease. Only human gets typhoid. So the impact of the vaccine in the community is much larger. What has been your impression about Nepal´s overall health services? I can talk specifically about vaccination. Well, I found Nepal to be an excellent place. Commitment of the government towards health programs is very high in terms of vaccine introduction and vaccination programs. This is my own experience. Within the District Public Health Office there is the District Immunization Coordination Committee which is responsible for implementation of the program. I found this very unique in Nepal, and it involves not only the health sector for implementing the programs but other partners also. How does Nepal compare with other countries in terms of health services? What does Nepal have to do to meet the level of other developed countries? Nepal in fact is much further ahead compared to some other countries in your neighborhood. Compared to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India, Nepal has been a pioneer in introducing vaccines. For example in introducing the hepatitis B and Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccines, Nepal was actually number one. In a sense it is a leader within the region. In the case of typhoid vaccine, piloting has been successfully done. If Nepal introduces the vaccine there is another chance to become a pioneer again. Lots of developed countries do not necessarily have successful immunization programs. They have good systems but many of the countries do not see the diseases you see in Nepal. So what the Nepal government is doing is to react to the diseases. Nepal is doing its best already. Nepal also has its National Committee on Immunization Practices (NCIP), which is led by an independent specialist and takes rational decisions in introducing vaccines in Nepal, which is a very good initiative. So the government is meeting the demand for disease control, which is very important. What role should private pharmaceuticals companies play in serving poor patients in countries like Nepal? I believe there has to be some kind of public-private partnership. The public sector needs to work closely with the private sector. The public sector needs medicines which the private sector produces. At the same time the private sector should voluntarily involve itself in social services. I think there should be a good partnership between the private and public sectors. The government does not keep typhoid vaccines in it regular program and it is expensive also. How can it be effective when the general public cannot afford it? Well, the vaccine has already been introduced in the market. Yes, it is expensive. I think this is where the role of public-private partnership comes in. If the government provides facilities and encouragement to the private sector, they will bring out the products at affordable prices. The government should also think about the burden of disease. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=37323 Chinese Ambassador Yang Houlan has recently completed one year in Nepal. In this connection, Yang spoke to our Hong Kong-based special correspondent Purna Basnet, on his experiences in Nepal, China’s strategic interests, Tibet, investment, among other issues. [break] EXCERPTS Having completed one year in Nepal as Chinese envoy what is your impression of the country? Firstly, Nepal is a beautiful country. Since I came here one year ago, I have visited many places, both in cities and rural areas and encountered many Chinese tourists. The beautiful scenery, pleasant climate, rich cultural and religious heritage here, which also attract Chinese tourists, impressed me. Secondly, Nepal is a friendly country. Since taking office here, I have met all kinds of people representing Nepali government, political parties, commercial sector, academia and media. I felt there was a consensus on developing China-Nepal friendship. The excellent friendship between China and Nepal was deeply rooted in the heart of both peoples. Thirdly, Nepal is a land of great potential. You have rich natural resources and Nepali people are hard working. The country is rich in hydropower, tourism and agricultural resources. Although Nepal is now in a period of political and social transition and faces many problems, I firmly believe that industrious and brave people of Nepal have the ability to realize their country’s political stability, economic development and social progress. Nepal’s Constituent Assembly failed to promulgate a new constitution and the prime minister has called for a new election on November 22. What is Chinese view on recent political developments in Nepal? Currently, Nepal is at a critical moment of political transition and faces a historical task of writing a constitution. Through my contacts with Nepali people from various walks of life, I feel that everyone has a strong desire for national stability and development. Although there are differences on some issues, I feel all want to achieve the goal of peace, stability and development. China respects the choice of Nepali people and believes that parties will make joint effort to resolve the disputes and seek consensus through negotiations. Prolonged political uncertainty in Nepal must be worrying China. How do you examine Nepal government’s cooperation on Tibet issue? China and Nepal keep close contact and a high level of cooperation on Tibet issue. China respects the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nepal, and the road chosen by the Nepali people. Chinese side highly appreciates that all administrations in Nepal have firmly pursued one-China policy, and held the position that the territory of Nepal would never be allowed to be used for anti-China activities by any forces. I’m confident that we will be able to further develop comprehensive cooperation between the two countries. Besides Tibet, what are China’s major concerns in Nepal? As one of the 14 continental neighbors of China, bordering the Tibet Autonomous Region, Nepal has an important place in China’s neighborhood diplomacy as well as in China’s overall diplomacy. Politically, China and Nepal share a relationship as good neighbors, good brothers, good partners and good friends. We corporate on international and regional issues and attach great importance to mutual concerns. Economically, Nepal, which is located between the two emerging economies of China and India, is an important potential trading route between China and South Asia. The economic and trade cooperation has witnessed progress in the past few years and there is potential for further progress. Nepal and China have started formal security talks. Is this aimed at tightening security on Tibetan border? The borderline between Nepal and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China is over 1,400 km. The two sides have strengthened cooperation on security and law enforcement and are working together to fight against cross-border crimes so as to safeguard the security and stability in the border area. Acts of self-immolation by Dalai Lama supporters are on the rise. What is your view on resolving this issue? I feel deeply upset with recent incidents. The fundamental rule of Buddhism is to cherish one’s life; the sin of suicide is inferior only to murder. Self-immolations show no mercy and no wisdom. Those who encourage, glorify and help self-immolations should be condemned by conscience. As pointed out by Mr Schmidt on Daily, one of Germany mainstream media, “Dalai Lama, regarded as the incarnation of the merciful Bodhisattva, doesn’t focus on the lives of those committed self-immolations, but on the very impacts of self-immolations”. Those who advocate an independent Tibet and try to separate it from China can never succeed by depriving lives of others. Do you think that further negotiation is possible between Beijing and Dalai Lama in the near future? Chinese Central Government remains sincere and patient in its contact and discussions with Dalai Lama. The stand and policy is consistent and explicit and the door for talks with Dalai Lama is still open. It is time for Dalai Lama to show his sincerity for discussion and create positive atmosphere for discussion by taking real action. Since Nepal is a neighbor to rising economies of China and India, what should be the Nepal’s role in regional affairs? Maintenance of simultaneous friendly relations with these two countries not only serves the interest of Nepal, but it also promotes tri-party cooperation among China, Nepal and India. The Chinese side wants Nepal to make use of this sound opportunity and unique geographical advantages to develop and play a positive role on regional issues. The Chinese side would like to enhance cooperation in various areas between China, Nepal and India. Have there been any major changes in the dynamics of Nepal-China bilateral relationship after the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to Nepal earlier this year? During his visit, Premier Wen held a talk with Prime Minister Bhattarai, met with President Yadav and also communicated with party leaderships. Premier Wen spoke highly of Nepal’s unswerving position on one-china policy and its understanding and support of China’s core interests. The Nepali side also appreciated China’s policy and selfless support for Nepal. The two sides signed eight agreements on economic assistance, culture cooperation, border management, trans-frontier pasturing, and cooperation between two Foreign Ministries and issued a Joint statement, which tabulated important achievements. Premier Wen’s visit further consolidated traditional China-Nepal friendship, deepened mutual cooperation and promoted common development. The visit brought China-Nepal comprehensive partnership based on cooperation to a new height. Besides West Seti and Pokhara regional Airport, what are China’s major investment interests in Nepal? As the major economic cooperative projects for China and Nepal, West Seti and Pokhara regional airport are still at an early stage. I hope both sides work at strengthening coordination and cooperation and start construction of the two projects at the earliest. I also believe that with the completion of above-mentioned projects, the problems of electricity shortage and traffic jams in Nepal would be resolved and socio-economic development promoted. Regarding future projects, the Chinese side would like to discuss with Nepal strengthening cooperation in the fields of hydropower, agriculture, tourism and infrastructure. We would listen to and take into consideration the suggestions and advice from Nepali side and give priority to the major projects benefiting Nepali people’s wellbeing. Some Chinese enterprises have shown keen interest in Lumbini’s development. Would you specify particular plans for Lumbini? Nepal has announced 2012 Visit Lumbini Year, which has attracted the attention of international community including China. As the birthplace of Lord Buddha, Lumbini has important historical, religious and cultural significance. The Chinese side is positive about developing Lumbini and would like to discuss the issue with Nepali side. How are China’s plans of greater connectivity between Tibet and Nepal faring? During the past few years, both governments have been trying to expedite construction of roads and trade ports between the two countries. With the improvement of infrastructure, bilateral trade and people-to-people exchanges would witness gradual increase and economic relations would get more intimate, all of which will contribute to promoting economic development and cooperation between China and Nepal. I am highly optimistic about the extension of Tibet railway to Nepal. In an op-ed article titled “Shining Tibet” in this daily you highlighted achievements in Tibet. As a bordering country with Tibet, how should Nepal take advantage from China’s development? Tibet Autonomous Region is a very beautiful place. Due to its unique history and culture, Tibet holds special significance in Chinese culture. The development there is also a shining example of China’s rapid advance. TAR’s GDP has expanded by above 12 percent through last three years. The peasant income has gone up by 18.5 percent in last one year. China’s 12th Five Year Plan is critical for developing a well-off society in TAR. I strongly believe that various strategies to enrich the Tibetan people and make Tibet prosperous that have been adopted by the government of Tibet Autonomous Region will show gradual progress. Nepal and TAR share border of more than 1,400 km. The rapid development of TAR will create better opportunities for strengthening bilateral interaction and promoting mutually-beneficial cooperation. Meanwhile, in a unique geographic position, Nepal could act as a bridge between China, including TAR, and South Asian region. Then all parties could realize the goal of common development. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=37021 Axel van Trotsenburg is World Bank’s Vice-President for Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships. He currently leads the policy negotiations and replenishment process for the International Development Association (IDA), the World Bank’s largest sources of development aid, providing no-interest, long-term credits and grants to 82 of the poorest countries of the world. Republica’s Prem Khanal talked to van Trotsenburg, who was in Kathmandu for a three-day visit. [break] EXCERPTS How do you assess World Bank’s five decade-long role in Nepal’s development? We are happy that the World Bank has been able play a constructive role in helping Nepal achieve its development goals. This can be taken as a testimony to the fact that the World Bank is a long-term development partner with a strong commitment to extending all possible support to help Nepal achieve its core development objectives. We have been extending strong support for sustainable poverty reduction, education and health. As far as the outcomes of these development efforts are concerned, I am happy to note most of the joint efforts between Nepal and the World Bank have produced wonderful results and have helped put Nepal on a sustainable development path. Poverty reduction has been one remarkable achievement for Nepal over last few years; though there are still many challenges. Similarly, impressive reduction in maternal mortality, which remains a big challenge for many low income countries, is appreciable. We have also seen encouraging progress in extending the supply of clean drinking water. However, this doesn’t mean that Nepal has no serious challenges. Of course, there are many challenges ahead and I believe, with a strong partnership and cooperation between Nepal and the World Bank, we can overcome these challenges and help keep Nepal in a sustainable development path. Undoubtedly Nepal’s poverty reduction efforts have been encouraging over the last decade, but at the same time the country has witnessed growing income inequality. Isn’t this a worrisome development? Yes, rising inequality is a concern but this is not a problem unique to Nepal. Many countries—developing and developed—face the same problem. I think rising inequality needs to be understood in a multi-dimensional way. The problem of widening inequality sometimes arises when poverty reduces faster than reduction in inequality. But I believe with sustained reduction in poverty, like the one seen in Nepal, there will be a gradual decline in inequality in coming years. At the same time, we shouldn’t forget that by lifting many thousands people out of poverty we have been able to touch their lives. So, this is a very important achievement. We at the World Bank believe that providing equality of opportunity is the most powerful means to fight inequality. Equality of opportunity basically begins with promotion of economic opportunities for women, particularly in education, health and employment so as to enable them to engage in various income generating activities. Could you please highlight the role IDA is playing in Nepal’s development pace? Nepal has been benefiting a lot from IDA funds and technical advice and it has been able to produce many impressive outcomes that can be presented to the international community as success stories. Nepal has some great stories to tell in maternal mortality reduction, community driven development projects and poverty reduction through schemes run by the Poverty Alleviation Fund. I think these successes can be replicated in many low income countries. We continue to encourage governments to identify what the people need rather than us thinking about what is important to them. In this vein we have also have urged the Government of Nepal to tell us how we can support them in achieving the goals they have set for Nepali people. Of course we understand that various problems arise in implementing projects. So we encourage governments to share their problems so that we can help in sorting them out on the basis of experiences that we have gathered from all over the world. We also encourage governments like Nepal to champion new ideas in development and tell us how we can be a better partner to achieve their larger economic and development goals. Could you please tell us about the issues you discussed with Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai during your meeting on Tuesday? We had a very productive and cordial meeting with the Prime Minister. During the meeting the Prime Minister highlighted the need to develop hydropower and infrastructure, particularly roads. I think this is very much in line with the development strategy that Nepal and World Bank have been adopting for last couple of years. In addition, we also discussed a number of efforts that the Bank and government are putting into reducing poverty and improving social sector outcomes. We appraised the Prime Ministry that the World Bank is committed to a strong coalition with Nepal and will support the development policies it adopts for infrastructure to social development in the coming days. Issue of inequality is multi-dimensional. The problem of widening inequality can arise when poverty reduces faster than reduction in inequality. Given the deepening financial crisis in Europe and other parts of the world, how likely is reduction in the World Bank’s development aid to low income countries like Nepal? We are currently in the 16th cycle of IDA which started in July last year and will end in June 2014. As per our agreed program, we have committed US $600 million to Nepal for the three-year period. We have time and again committed that despite the ongoing economic problems in the West, there will be no reduction in resources for low income countries. One encouraging development is that despite the fiscal stress that some of the traditional donors of IDA are facing, we have been able to mobilize additional financial support from emerging countries, ranging from Russia to Mexico, from Saudi Arabia to China. The World Bank mobilized US $50 billion during the IDA-16 replenishment. Given the prolonged political transition in the country, what kind of development policies would you advise for Nepal’s development? One of the beauties of the World Bank is that we believe we have no comparative advantage in interfering in the political economy of a country. We believe Nepalis themselves are in a better position to choose which policy suits them best. So, it is not the job of the World Bank to advise any country on how to navigate its politics. What the World Bank can do is share international experiences to help countries solve problems that appear while executing development projects. We have said many times that the World Bank is committed to support those countries that have passed through difficult periods and we believe such countries need more support from the international community despite the difficult external environment. What I believe is, as long as we maintain an effective channel of communication, we can ensure good financial management along with good implementation of development projects. So, the World Bank is committed to promoting a strong partnership of openness so that we can continue to support low-income countries in their development endeavors. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=36699 Professor Ma Jiali is a South Asia expert associated with China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), a think-tank operating under China’s state council. Also a member of China-India Track to Dialogue, Jiali is an eminent expert on Indian affairs. The Executive Deputy Director of Center for Strategic Studies of China, he specializes in studying China’s foreign policies vis-à-vis India and Nepal. Purna Basnet caught up with Jiali in Beijing recently. Excerpts:[break] Rumor has it that dissident faction of UCPN (Maoist) got Beijing’s blessing to break away from the establishment faction. Is that true? It is possible that some Nepali Maoist leaders looking to break away and adopt the revolutionary path sought support from China. But China will not support such a cause. China does not favor party splits of any kind. Bud did China at least sympathize with the Maoist dissident faction? Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is a famous leader. If this fame could be cashed in properly, it could contribute to Nepal’s transformation. We want to see the Dahal-led party grow stronger and consolidated. This is really important. As Maoists have high regard of China, it won’t ever hurt Dahal (faction). Yet, these are just our wishes for a leader like Dahal. We do not dictate terms to him. The Communist Party of China (CPC) has seen a lot of ups and downs in its 90 years of history. But we always prioritize common good, settling minor differences within the party. As regards political parties of other countries, China cannot judge which party is good and which is not. So it is out of question for CPC to favor one party group over another. China has a big stake in the peace and constitution process of Nepal. But Nepal’s Constituent Assembly has been dissolved without completing the twin task. What does Bejing have to say about this? The current political situation of Nepal is complex. Yet there is no alternative to consensus among major political parties, including Maoists. Only consensus will help them complete those tasks. It could be possible that the US or India is trying to influence Nepal in this situation. But China stays away from any sort of interference in Nepal’s internal affairs. The political parties themselves must take bold decisions to break the political deadlock. But since elections for a new CA have been already announced, will the parties be able to forge a consensus as you suggest? If the situation remains unchanged, conducting elections will be a tough task. But if the parties come together on this issue, China believes elections will be possible. Consensus is important also because Nepal desperately wants stability. If the next election is successful, China has a special package of economic assistance for Nepal. We are thinking about how to fully help the new government and accelerate development projects in Nepal. Does China believe that federating Nepal will pose a security threat to it? The federal agenda of Nepal has become knottier because of irreconcilable proposals coming from various sectors—political parties and Madhesi and Janajati sections and India’s keen interest. It is difficult to comment further on the issue now. Are Indian and Chinese interests in Nepal on a collision course? At the moment, bilateral relations between China and India are really good. Yet, doubts remain on issues of border disputes, the Tibet agenda, South Asia and political affairs of South East Asia. India and China do not see eye to eye on these issues. India and China’s policies vis-à-vis Nepal are of great importance for the two countries. But we believe that Nepal should conduct itself by balancing the interests of the two countries. Also, there are concerns that taking advantage of special relations with Nepal, India has been meddling in Nepal’s political and economic affairs. There are reasons behind such concerns. But China does not want to strengthen its relation with Nepal to control it. Our relations are based on bilateral interests. China does not want to confront India in Nepal. Each of us maintains our relations (with Nepal) in our own ways. Some Chinese analysts are of the view that both China and India’s interests in Nepal are increasingly growing. Is that the case? China is a liberal country. People are free to express their views. But the truth is that the US and India are consolidating their influence a bit at a time in Nepal. Many have come to realize this. But China will not follow their footsteps. China has its own strategy and interests. China has its own concern about the current political situation in Nepal. The problem is that India does not want to treat Nepal on equal footing. It does not want to talk to Nepal face to face across the table. It is often said Tibet is the only Chinese concern vis-à-vis Nepal and China offers assistance to Nepal merely to control Tibetan activities on Nepali soil. Is it true? As you know, Tibet is a sensitive and vital concern for China. China wants to assist greater stability in Nepal in particular and South Asia in general. China has been offering help to different governments in Nepal in line with this philosophy. But if political instability and transition in Nepal are prolonged, it will be hard to rein in anti-China activities there. We expect that Nepal will produce a stable and powerful government after the next election. And anti-China activities will also be controlled. As a country sandwiched between two Asian giants, what role do you envision for Nepal in regional politics? If China, India and Nepal work hand in hand, it will be for everyone’s good. But this is easier said than done. Between China and India, there is a forum called track two dialogue, of which I am also a member. This is a forum to discuss issues related to China and India. We never include any third country in that forum. I think Kathmandu is ready for the discussion on the trilateral agenda of China, India and Nepal. But Delhi does not seem to want this. The problem is that India does not want to treat Nepal on an equal footing. So it does not want to talk to Nepal face to face across the table. To discuss issues face to face with three countries implies that all three countries are equal. This could benefit India but surprisingly it does not want this to happen. This worries me a lot. There was talk about road connectivity between the three countries. Any progress on that front? China is a good neighbor for South Asian countries. Provinces like Tibet, Sichuan, Yunnan etc are neighboring states of south Asian countries, including Nepal and India. We want to develop transport connection with our neighbors, because with direct connectivity, bilateral relations can be sustained. We want to expand Lhasa Railway not only up to Nepal but up to Delhi and other South Asian countries. But this project has hit a snag. India, in particular, does not want Lhasa Railway to be directly linked with Kathmandu. In fact, it is trying to obstruct the operation of the project. But in my view, this is a Cold War era mentality of India. With railway infrastructure in place, China will be in a better position to help Nepal and Nepalis will greatly benef. China had planned to construct road network connecting Yunnan of South China with India and Burma. But as Delhi showed no will, the project could not take off. This is the reason why China wants a strong and stable government in Nepal, so that Nepal could work independently. China will discuss the issue of Kathmandu-Lhasa Railway with India. And China expects that India will respond positively toward building roads and railway networks connecting three countries. Is China willing to assist Nepal in the Lumbini Development Project? As far as I understand, Lumbini Development Project under the Asia Pacific Exchange and Cooperation Foundation (APECF) has been halted for some time. It has come to the fore that various organizations from Nepal strongly opposed the project and some even used their influence to stop the project from taking off. Well, I do not have proof of this. But I think my guess is right. There are great many Buddhists in China and they want to visit Buddha’s birthplace in Lumbini. If Lumbini project could see the light of the day, this would be really good for Nepal and China. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=36363 The possibility of a split in UCPN (Maoist) has for sometime been considered only a matter of time. Even on Wednesday, there were hectic parlays between the Maoist establishment faction under Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and the rebel faction under Vice-chair Mohan Baidya to avert the impending division. Kiran Pun and Biswas Baral talked to Baidya on the same day on the likelihood of the Maoist party staying united and on the course of discussions in the last few days. [break] Going by recent media reports it appears that the Maoist party is united only in name and a formal split is only a matter of time. Is that really the case? Any party is based on certain ideology and principles. If a meeting point can be found on these, the party will remain one, otherwise it will split. En route from people’s war to the current stage we have made some decisions, but the party establishment has been flouting those agreements one after another. The task of preparing a people-oriented constitution could also not be fulfilled. The issue of army integration could not be carried out in a dignified manner. In this situation, it is clear that both Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal as well as Vice-chairman Baburam Bhattarai have not been successful in carrying out previous agreements. That is why we have called for national gathering so that these issues can be settled. Hopefully, things will be clearer after the national gathering on June 15. What are the minimum conditions for the party to stay united? First, the establishment needs to review all its past failings. We had been saying that the issue of army integration had to be carried out in a proper manner. What happened instead was that the Maoist leadership agreed to integration in haste. It is even less justifiable now that it has not resulted in a constitution. Second, in the final stretch of the constitution making process, vital discussions should have been held inside the CA. What happened instead was that the top leaders, mainly of the three big parties, got together and carried out discussions behind closed doors. Effectively, the loktantrik process was usurped by three leaders from an assembly of 601. The (party) chairman must take responsibility for this great failure. Third, we entered people’s war to carry out a democratic revolution centered on establishment of a people’s federal republic. The chairman abandoned that tactical line in favor of a loktantrik republic. How could they accept loktantrik republic when our agenda was clearly people’s federal republic? The party’s official stand is that there should be a people-based constitution based on our vision of people’s federal republic. Since the chairman abandoned the party’s official line, he should explain why. Fourth, the people’s war was aimed at safeguarding the country’s sovereignty. What the leadership has done is completely overlooked this. As a result, the country has become a playing field of international interests. The issue of India’s growing influence in the country has also been completely overlooked. Instead, all our important water sources have been sold. Take the case of Upper Karnali and Arun III projects, which were granted by sidestepping the parliament. Or the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) that Baburam Bhattarai signed with India. All these have raised a serious question on the country’s sovereignty status. So we have been demanding that the leadership be serious about reviewing these agreements. Fifth, the establishment is now talking about reelection of the Constituent Assembly. This is nonsense. It has become abundantly clear that other alternatives have to be explored to find a way out of the current political and constitutional vacuum. We have proposed a roundtable conference with the participation of all parties as well as representatives from marginalized groups and all classes and sections of the society. That conference should decide the country’s future governance and a way out of the current crisis. Can these conditions be met without the resignation of Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai which you have been demanding? After the government was declared a caretaker, the issue of prime minister’s resignation is irrelevant. What is more important is that the proposals forwarded at the party’s official meets be taken seriously. What is happening now is that we put forth certain proposals and the chairman assures us that all of them will be addressed. What happens instead is that the chairman forgets about the proposals even before the ink on it has dried. This happened during the Palangtur plenum, the Kharipati plenum and also in the course of our most recent negotiations. We want the party leadership to hear our voice. You have said that both the tactical line and leadership of the establishment faction has failed. Are you suggesting that the leadership make way? We have never raised the question of the chairman’s resignation. It is the chairman who popularized the concept. I have told him that resignation is no solution to the current crisis. Instead, he should correct his course on party tactical line and politics. There have been media reports that you proposed party presidency for yourself and prime ministership for Ram Bahadur Thapa as a possible meeting point. That is not true. I think Biplap (Netra Bikram Chand) said it in a particular context. But he also suggested that the leadership correct its course on tactical and political line. We have never made and will never make posts a bargaining chip during discussions. What you also got to remember is that the chairman announced he was ready to step down but the very next day he said he was not ready to give up the post as yet. Thus neither did the chairman ever offer to resign in good faith nor have we ever made his resignation an issue in our discussions. Neither did the chairman ever offer to resign in good faith nor have we ever made his resignation an issue in our discussions. But hasn’t the party been vertically split, right from the top leadership to the grassroots level? In such a situation how acceptable will a negotiated settlement among top leaders be? One of the reasons we are holding the national convention on June 15 is to settle this question. But I also think that any initiative towards this end has to be taken at the leadership level. There are speculations that as in Palungtar and Kharipati, you will again compromise and a split will be avoided. No, we will not compromise on our agenda this time. Chairman Dahal has said that you don’t have the guts to break the party. I think that is a statement made to provoke us. We will not succumb to such provocations. Ultimately, what decides whether the party stays one or not depends on whether there can be a meeting point on party line and politics. Our goal is to keep the party united, but we want the unity to be based on the establishment’s course correction. If the leadership does not acknowledge its failings and is not ready to make any kind of course correction, there can be no unity. With the CA gone, you have ratcheted up the pressure for ‘people’s revolt’ again. Do you think this agenda will find adherents among common Nepalis? First of all, people’s revolt is not just the line of a particular faction. It is the official line of the Maoist party. Even our official document mentions that our first priority would be promulgation of people-centered constitution, failing which the party would go for people’s revolt. What the party leadership has been doing is spreading a lie that it is only us who are in favor of a revolt. But how can you be confident that you will get the support of common people for this line? Look, we are in the process of making a people-centered constitution. The situation now is that the leadership has failed to come up with any kind of constitution, leave alone a people-centered constitution. Isn’t this a sign of a serious failure? In the name of army integration, it made the PLA surrender. It agreed to identity-based federalism, but during negotiations accepted the 11-province model that completely overlooked the identity question. People understand this duplicity well. They also understand how the leadership has compromised on the question of country’s sovereignty. How it has sidelined the vital issues of janajatis and other marginalized communities. So our main agenda will be how the traditional democratic forces and the Maoist leadership have broken people’s trust. Doesn’t the radical line adopted by your faction on the left and, say, that of RPP (Nepal) on the right risk further polarization of an already polarized society? If you look at the divisions within parties, be it NC, UML or our own party, at the root of the disagreements is the political leadership’s failure to address people’s problems. This, I believe, is the primary cause of political polarization. The only way such a polarization can be minimized is if the parties adopt people-centered policies. What we are seeing now is that almost all the parties are primarily concerned about power politics rather than solving people’s problems. The way out is for all the political parties to hold wide-ranging discussions on ways to secure people’s interests. If there is a rupture in the Maoist party, will the new breakaway party take part in future elections? The prime minster has proposed new CA polls for November 22. There is no question of taking part in it because no such poll will take place on the scheduled date. As far as our participation in electoral process is concerned, it all depends on the future context. As communists, we will take part in the process if it corresponds to our ultimate goals, if not, we will stay out. In the end, how hopeful are you that the current round of dialogue with party establishment will be fruitful in keeping the party intact? There have been media reports that the talks have been constructive. We hope the talks can be constructive and contribute toward taking the party forward as a single, strong entity. The talks have not been constructive if you are implying that they have led to definite solutions. But definitely, we are trying to work our way to those solutions. Let’s wait and see what happens. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=36202 CPN-UML Vice-chairman Ashok Rai is leading a dissident group of UML leaders from Madhesi, ethnic and indigenous communities who are demanding ethnicity-based federalism. He talked briefly to Republica.[break] You have been continuously boycotting party meetings in recent days and you didn’t attend the Central Committee meeting on Saturday either. What is the reason? These days, my status in the party is like I am on leave. Tell us whether or not you are going to attend the party meetings. We are just watching and waiting, what decisions the party takes at the ongoing CC meeting. How hopeful are you of the UML leadership addressing your concerns? Politics is unpredictable. So nothing is impossible. Are your leaders holding talks with you and seriously responding to your concerns? They have been requesting us frequently to sit for talks and find solutions. But you didn’t attend the meeting today [Saturday] either. Why? It’s not that we are not holding talks. Though I am not present in person at the meetings, some of the friends [CC members] from our group are attending and they are raising our voice there. In the recent politburo and CC meetings, a significant number of leaders reportedly pressed the party leadership to adopt the mixed-identity model as a middle-path solution to resolve the row over state restructuring. Are you okay with the proposal? It can be a solution. We continued our campaign as the leaders rejected the idea of delineating and naming provinces based on mixed identities [of the ethnic communities concerned]. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35888 Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai took time off from his busy schedule and spent this weekend at a resort in Dhulikhel. Reading and writing was what he did for relaxation. In an interview with Republica’s Kosmos Biswokarma and Kiran Chapagain, PM Bhattarai seemed adamant that resigning from his position is not an option without the basis for the future understanding between the parties. But the interview started off with what he read during his quiet stay at Dhulikhel and what he derived from the books he read. [break] EXCERPTS: Did you read any particular book while in Dhulikhel? I read books related to eastern philosophy and to the Mahabharat. Did you draw any message useful to the present political situation from those readings? The present transition needs to be managed properly. The transition has been prolonged after the failure to promulgate the constitution on May 27. The country may face a risk of being stagnant and plunging into a conflict. I have been pondering how the political leadership should move ahead and how the people should be kept united by addressing their aspirations in this situation. It has been over four years the parties have been stressing on national consensus. The major political parties have announced to hit the street demanding your resignation. What is your reaction? What you should understand is that there is no alternative to the present government under my leadership, that meets the provisions laid out in the Interim Constitution and the international practice. So everyone should think how much it will be in the best interest of the loktantra if the present government steps down, creating political and constitutional void. But you have already become a caretaker prime minister? There is no word as such ‘caretaker’ in the Interim Constitution. The word has been used only in spoken language. This government will continue to be the legitimate government until another legitimate body comes into existence as per the existing constitution and international practice because it was formed by the elected Legislature-Parliament and it was in the office at the time when the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. So it cannot be a democratic thinking to create a vacuum by pressing the government to step down. I urge political parties to give a thought to that situation as well. It is natural for political parties to make such a demand in a democracy. I have found that those political parties who have stood for state restructuring, and economic and social transformations have supported this government. But those political parties who failed to adopt new thinking on state restructuring and those who possess backward-looking thinking on economic and social transformation have become naturally dissatisfied [with this government]. You became prime minister last August with sole mission of completing the peace and constitution writing processes. Don’t you think that you lost moral ground to continue office in view of the fact that both the processes remained unfinished by May 27? You should look at the efforts made for the peace and constitution and the achievements made after I became prime minister, rather than putting forth a moral question at me. The peace process, especially the integration of [the Maoist] army which is the most important part of the peace process and had remained largely stalled, was driven almost near to conclusion, though not concluded fully, during my prime ministership. You should not take it as a worthless achievement. We had almost completed constitution drafting process. Unfortunately, the process could not be completed due to some CPN-UML leaders who could not discard their traditional mindset, especially in regards to the issue of state restructuring. Consequently, the constitution writing process could not be completed though it was at the last stage. I should not run away from the responsibility given by the constitution. The constitution has bestowed all the executive powers on the present government as it was in the office at the time of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. You blamed NC and UML leaders for the failure to draft the new constitution. But it was your party that withdrew from an agreement reached among political parties on May 15.  We did not backtrack from the agreement. The agreement could not be endorsed [in the form of the constitution] from the Constituent Assembly as 320 members objected to it in writing. But your party had backtracked from the agreement before the 320 members objected to it. It was not possible in loktantra to push the agreement that was supposed to be endorsed by two-thirds majority members but was objected by majority members. There was a need to review the agreement by all the parties but the Nepali Congress and the UML were not ready. Consequently, the CA dissolved. Our party never withdrew from the agreement. Before 320 CA members objected to the agreement, Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal asked Janajati leaders to take to the streets and exert pressure against the agreement. Don’t you think this was the point from where the parties started to mistrust each other in the aftermath of the agreement? This is wrong. It is illogical as well. If the NC and UML CA members obeyed what Prachanda said, we would have invited them to join the Maoist party. The NC and UML leaders have old mindset and the Madhesi, Dalit and Janjati from their parties have risen to contest such mindset. The problem is not with the Maoist party, but with the NC and the UML. The present crisis is the result of the old and status-quoist mindset of the NC and the UML, especially with regard to state restructuring. The pending bill to amend Article 64 could also be used to amend the Article 82 and thus create an alternative mechanism in the Constitution to complete the unfinished tasks of the constitution writing. Why were you and your party, especially the establishment faction, not ready to go for that option? It was not possible to create a parliament through an indirect way in the context of the Supreme Court stalling the process of extending the term of the Constituent Assembly. We had discussed this option as well. But some members with legal background suggested us not to go for such an option, arguing the court might stay even such a move. Then the option was dropped. Just ahead of the cabinet that announced the date of the election, you had called the leaders of NC and UML for a meeting at your office to discuss possible ways to save the CA. But you did not come out for the meeting until the election decision was made. It is false. You should identify who obstructed constitution writing process. The talks broke down after NC and UML opposed caste-based federalism and the Madhesi and the Janjati vowed to reject the constitution without federalism. Then I had proposed imposition of a state of emergency to extend the term of the CA and had even told the leaders that I was ready to own all the discredit such a move would invite. But the NC and the UML leaders, except Sher Bahadur Deuba, opposed such move. It was already 10:30 pm then. In such a situation, I had only one option left—declaring the election. It is true that I had talked with the leaders over phone before the cabinet to ask them whether there were any options left. It was not even possible to declare the state of emergency from procedural point of view as three to four procedural steps were to be completed before declaring the state of emergency. Then I consulted the attorney general and the law secretary in this regard though I got no clear cut answer from NC and UML. In this situation, there was no alternative to declaring the election. You could have declared the election after consulting NC and UML even after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. If the elections were not announced before the midnight [of May 27], it would have invited a constitutional controversy. There would have been a controversy over who should announce the election. Then CA Chairman Subas Nembang had cautioned about the constitutional crisis the country could face if election were to be announced and had asked the leaders and you to amend the constitution before making such a move. Why did you not heed his advice? That was wrong. I cannot divulge details in my capacity as the prime minister. History will evaluate the irresponsible role played by political leaders and the CA Chairman. Why was not the meeting of the CA called after consensus became elusive? We were supposed to go to Baneshwor straight from Baluwatar and had called CA chairman about this, but we were told that there might be violence in Baneshwor if we went there. Was there any understanding on multi-identity-based federalism after the meeting with women, Dalits and Janjatis on May 27? We had proposed mixed identity-based federalism but some UML leaders strongly opposed that there should be no caste-based federalism. Even Janjati leaders were ready to agree on mixed identity-based federalism. Are you saddened by the demise of the Constituent Assembly? I claim no one is as sad as I am over the dissolution of the CA. But this emotional thing has no meaning. It is fact recorded in the history that I played the main role in establishing the agenda of the Constituent Assembly in my party and the Nepali politics though my party helped establish the agenda in Nepali politics. So, perhaps, no one in Nepal is as sad as I was in Nepal over the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. Some have argued that the CA can be reinstated through political decision to complete the unfinished tasks of constitution writing. In my opinion, such a move would not be appropriate as the Constituent Assembly was dissolved owing to wrong thinking of some leaders and lack of wisdom. Though election is a democratic practice, many argue that time is not ripe to hold yet another CA election. It is the parties and the people who hold election. If they create an environment for the election, it is possible. The country cannot move ahead without consensus among political parties. Why not facilitate it by making way? Constitutionally speaking, there is no alternative to this government. Will loktantra be strengthened by inviting political and constitutional crisis? Isn’t it my responsibility to safeguard loktantra and constitution at this critical juncture? Will it be an appropriate move to run away from the responsibility? The Mohan Baidya faction of your party has floated the idea of completing the unfinished tasks of the constitution making through a roundtable meeting. What is your take on this issue? This is an extra-constitutional process. I do not think time has come to give it a thought. Solution should be sought from within the constitution. Those friends [the Baidya faction leaders] do not like this process. It is natural for them to try to take this process out of the constitutional bounds. But I hope NC and the UML will chose the constitutional process, which is the election. While NC, UML and the Baidya faction have been demanding for your resignation, you have been stressing on election. Why? You have been raising the issue of my resignation with emphasis. Will it be beneficial to invite a constitutional crisis? You seem to be trying to imply that my resignation will solve the present crisis but it is wrong to ask questions with that intention. The main thing is to seek a solution that is in the best interest of loktantra and constitution. For this I have taken initiatives. How hopeful are you that the initiatives bring results? I am hopeful. There is no alternative to consensus. You have been stressing on consensus and trying to make a point that consensus should not be forged in exchange for your resignation. Are we right? Consensus should be acceptable to all. Consensus should not be conditional. I am ready to sit for talks but there should not be any precondition. I am ready to make sacrifices. What do you mean by sacrifice? Consensus should safeguard loktantra and achievements made to date. The sacrifice can be anything towards that end. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35940 Shashank Srivastava, executive director-product planning and international marketing of Maruti Suzuki India, is in Nepal to get familiarized with the Nepali market and take stock of Maruti showrooms in Nepal. Kriti Bhuju of Republica caught up with Srivastava to talk about the sales and performance of Maruti vehicles in Nepal. Excerpts:[break] Prices of Maruti vehicles have remained unchanged for the past few years even though cars of other brands have become costlier in Nepal. Do you have any plans to increase prices? The price of the raw materials has increased and the Indian and Nepali currencies have weakened against US dollar due to which import cost has increased. Hence, we are under pressure to make upward revision in prices. But we are trying to keep the prices unchanged so that our customers do not have to suffer. But there is 50 percent chance of the price increasing in the near future. Maruti long dominated the A1 segment in Nepal. Currently, it is in the second position in the segment. What are your strategies to reclaim the top position? Yes, I agree that we are in the second position in the segment. But the gap between us and the market leader is very minimal. We are trying hard to again become the leader by focusing more on customer´s satisfaction and expanding our networks. It is often heard that Maruti Suzuki India is discontinuing production of Maruti 800. Is it true? The rumor has been doing rounds since 2003, but we are still producing Maruti 800. We will not discontinue the production as the demand for the car is increasing. Will Nepalis get new vehicles from Maruti stable in the near future? We are currently conducting the study on what type of vehicles Nepali customers look for. Depending on the requirement of Nepali customers, we will be introducing the vehicles in the near future. It is heard that your market share has gone down. Is it true? It is true that our market share has dropped a bit. But if we see our sales volume, it has more than doubled over the past five years. In 2006/07 we sold 1,300 units, but in the year 2010/11 it increased to 2,800 units. As Maruti has a very good market in Nepal, have you conducted any feasibility study to establish your assembling plants here? We haven´t conducted such studies yet as it is very difficult to assemble vehicles here in Nepal considering the size of the market though it is growing. The price of the vehicles would definitely go down if we could do so. But it is difficult to import parts of 16 different models and assemble it here. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35710 The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly has throw up many questions. With the CA gone, how does the country navigate the political vacuum? What will be the role of the prime minister and president in the new scheme of things? What form and size will the future CA take? Biswas Baral sat down with Purna Man Shakya, leading constitutional expert and one of the three lawyers who drafted the rules of procedure to govern the expired Constituent Assembly, to weigh some of the likely scenarios. [break] In your view, was there a better legal alternative to dissolving CA? Anything you think of as an alternative would have had to come through political consensus. Any such alternative would require constitutional amendment or passing of the constitution. Either option would have called for a two-third majority in the CA. Thus, in either case you could not have saved the CA without consensus between the political parties. Would the retention of the parliamentary role of the CA have had any legal backing? One of the ways could have been converting the CA into a legislature-Parliament. If the constitutional and legal frameworks were revised to open the way for fresh election of CA, then the legislature-parliament could have continued until the next election. But that didn’t happen. So it went into dissolution. But some parties had been arguing that a ‘transformed’ legislature-parliament could have played a law-making role in order to settle the remaining issues. No, the body could have continued only to make the government accountable to the people through Parliament. But legislative-Parliament could not have functioned as a Constituent Assembly. It could have functioned as a legislative-Parliament and exercised its constitution amending power if the Constituent Assembly had promulgated a constitution and provisioned for its continuation as legislature-Parliament until fresh election. On Tuesday, President Ram Baran Yadav formally declared the current government to be a caretaker government. What are its implications? No country can function without a government. In the interim constitution, there is a provision for caretaker government. If the CA gets dissolved, the legislature-Parliament also goes as it only acts as a shadow of the CA. Once the CA goes, all its members lose their status as members of Parliament. So even the prime minister has lost his status of a parliamentarian. And once he loses that status, he ceases to be the prime minster. And once that happens, he also loses his official status as a regular prime minister. The interim constitution says that the prime minister will continue as a caretaker prime minister and his government as a caretaker government until the next prime minister is elected as per the provisions of the constitution. As a caretaker Prime Minister, Baburam Bhattarai is supposed to look after daily administrative work but not take major policy decisions that have long-term impact. There have been arguments from some quarters that the president can intervene to countenance CA’s dissolution. Can he play any such role? In my evaluation, whatever the president did yesterday by way of declaration of the current government as caretaker, it was according to the provisions of the constitution. As a guardian of the constitution, the president has two functions: he himself has to adhere by the constitution and he also has to make sure others abide by it. So the question of the president going out of the bounds of the constitution and taking over does not arise. There have also been demands for the reinstitution of the dissolved CA. Is that possible? These are political questions. We had the restoration of the Parliament dissolved by King Gyanendra. That restoration happened because that was the only political solution at that time. The legitimacy for the restoration came from the popular movement of the people. So if there is again to be restoration of CA, it will not be on legal but on purely political grounds. But there is an important difference. King Gyanendra dismissed the parliament before the expiry of its tenure in an unconstitutional move. In the present case, the CA came to an end because it failed to deliver its end product within the designated time. So I would say that possibility of restoring CA is very remote. Prime Minister Bhattarai has announced new CA polls for November 22. But who decides on the number of members and timeframe? The caretaker government has made a decision to have the election on Nov. 22. Right now, we don’t have a constituent assembly, we don’t have a legislature-Parliament; we only have a caretaker government and the president. Now the caretaker government has decided to go for a fresh election. The present government’s announcement for election is for a constituent assembly, not for a Parliament. And this CA election would be held in the same manner that the last CA polls were held because the interim constitution is the same and the provisions and compositions of the constituent assembly remain the same. There is no Parliament or any other institution to modify the size and tenure of the constituent assembly. So the next CA will also have a life span of two years and 601 members? No, actually it will be for four years and will be 601-strong because they have already amended the interim constitution several times extending the CA’s tenure to four years. It remains as it is. Before the enactment of a federal democratic republican constitution, the form of government and state structure as it exists is unitary. What happens if someone files a petition at the Supreme Court arguing four years is too long and 601 a far greater number than needed?   The Supreme Court is there to interpret the provisions of the constitution, it cannot amend the constitution. How do you view the Supreme Court’s directive that the term of CA could no longer be extended? In my view, the Supreme Court has entered area of political questions. The decision was very popular, but from the view of constitutional jurisprudence, the decision is questionable. There are certain areas where the Supreme Court as an interpreter of the constitution would be advised to refrain from direct involvement, primarily on political questions. The matter of extension of CA was to be settled by political actors, not by judges. The royalists are now arguing that all decisions taken by the dissolved CA have to be declared null and void, including its decision to abolish monarchy and declaration of the country as a secular republic. Do these demands have legal grounds? There is a group of people who believe that with the CA dissolved, monarchy and the constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 could be revived. They basically talk about the ‘doctrine of eclipse’ for that kind of interpretation but that’s wrong. Because any constitution that gets replaced by another constitution does not get revived, it has to be reenacted by sovereign power. The question of automatic revival is not in keeping with constitutional jurisprudence. The interim constitution of 2007 clearly abrogates the 1990 constitution. The interim constitution rules the country at present. Unless something happens which leads to abrogation of interim constitution, reenactment of 1990 constitution, and with it return of monarchy, is not viable. So whatever happens, Nepal’s status as a federal, democratic republic cannot be reversed? Not necessarily. The interim constitution has declared its goal of going to a federal, democratic republic. But it could not achieve that goal because it could not declare a federal, democratic republican constitution. So you never know. In the future when the constituent assembly will be reelected, it will be elected as a sovereign constituent assembly. It will be that CA which will exercise the sovereign power of the people and decide what form of government and state we could have in Nepal. Without the enactment of a federal democratic republican constitution, Nepal will never be a federal democratic republic. The form of government and state structure as it exists under the interim constitution is unitary. So unless we are able to enact a new constitution, the country will not have a federal structure. So far as the issue of republicanism is concerned, the country is already a republic. It is only the federalism part that remains aspirational as it could not be enacted by a new constitution. So the monarchy is a gone chapter. It cannot be restored unless there is another revolution to bring back kingship. How will the new CA function? Will it have only constitution making role or will it also have parliamentary component as the erstwhile CA? There is an argument for separate bodies to settle constitutional and day-to-day administrative issues. That is a possibility. For that, you need to amend the constitution which will again call for political consensus. But since the CA is dissolved, we cannot amend the interim constitution. Since the president has declared the current government a caretaker government, and since the two major parties are out of it, does such a government have the legitimacy to hold election? In the past too, we have had caretaker governments conducting elections. But since the next election will not be for a regular Parliament, but for a new constituent assembly, the president, as a guardian of the constitution and head of the state, has advised the government to look for political consensus for holding election for new constituent assembly. As the head of the state, the president has the prerogative to advise, caution and warn the government. The president’s recent move has to be taken positively. What the president cannot do is dismiss the current government and replace it with another government that does not enjoy the support of all major parties. So you either have an all-party government under the current leadership or under another person who can garner the support of the present ruling coalition. It is a time for the president and the prime minister to work together, it is time for the government to seek broader consensus and it is time for all major parties to work towards a political consensus. There is no other way out. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35716 Nalin Mandiratta is the new General Manger of the Soaltee Crowne Plaza, Kathmandu. Mandiratta has been with Intercontinental Hotel Groups (IHG) for over two years and has more than 20 years of experience in the hospitality industry with significant expertise in hotel operation across reputed brands like Hilton, Mrriort and Carlson. Samiksha Koirala of Republica caught up with Mandiratta to learn about his plans as new general manager of the hotel and scenario of overall tourism industry. [break] How do you evaluate the growth in occupancy of your hotel with respect to growth in tourist arrivals in NTY 2011? I think the overall tourism industry of Nepal has experienced positive growth from the last 2-3 years which also includes several initiatives taken by the governement during Nepal Tourism Year 2011 to promote Nepal as a tourist designation. Compared to last year, we do foresee a healthy trend of growth in terms of tourist arrivals in our hotel in this fiscal year as well. What about the occupancy of the current season? Also mention if there is any significant change in booking in terms of market segment. As I have mentioned above, first quarter of this year compared to same period last year has shown a considerable growth in terms of tourist arrival in the city, which has direct correlation to the occupancy trend of the hotel. We have observed an encouraging growth from Corporate, MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conferencing, Exhibition) and leisure markets. Moreover, there has definitely been a shift in the market with regards to tourist arrivals in Nepal. In past few months, we have seen a healthy growth in terms of tourist arrivals from countries like India, China and South East Asia. Would you like to share the plans of expansion or upgradation? We have very extensive product development and upgradation plan for the next couple of years. In the progression, we have completely refurbished our 120 guest rooms in Princep wing and launched our newly renovated all day dining restaurant, Garden Terrace. Our primary focus for this year is to start the process of refurbishment of our Himalayan Wing Rooms and renovate our Chinese Speciality restaurant China Garden. We will also launch new menus for Alfresco and Kakori, our Italian and Indian restaurants respectively. What is the immediate effect of bandas/strike and political uncertainity in the hotel industry? We have experienced a marginal effect due to the bandas in terms of cancellation of bookings. We hope to see an affirmative trend in business with political stability in near future. The issue of power supply and labor unrest has been often pointed out by hoteliers as hindrances in growth of tourism industry? How problematic do you think these issues are and what else do you consider as hindrance growth of hotel industry? Yes, power supply is a big concern faced by tourism sector as it is one of the most important service requirements for our guests. Due to the increasing inflation and periodic rise in the prices of petrol and diesel, it contributes towards the high operational costs of the hotel. With regards to labour unrest, we do not face any challenges there because we have a healthy working relationship between the management and unions to further develop our product and services. We all work together as a team towards providing maximum guest satisfaction to make our hotel a Great Hotel Guests Love. Tourism income is falling down despite the rise in tourist arrivals and length of stay. Is it because we are failing to attract high-end tourists? In this regard, we have experienced a continuous positive trend in high-end tourist arrivals. What will be your prime focus and strategy as a general manager for the further growth of the hotel as well as the tourism industry of the country? My prime focus is towards improving the overall operations of Soaltee Crowne Plaza. Also, we will continue on the path of providing branded experience to our guests and the product and service development initiatives of the hotel. Any suggestions for the government that would help the hotel industry grow further? In my opinion, Nepal is a beautiful country and has so much to offer in terms of hospitality, heritage, and trekking, rafting, religious pilgrimage and so on. A stable political environment and continuous infrastructure growth will certainly be the key to further growth in the hospitality industry. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35674 Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai on May 27 announced new elections for a Constituent Assembly (CA) in November. While making his statement, he claimed that he took such a decision after receiving a nod from the Election Commission (EC) that it could hold new elections within the stipulated deadline. The government has announced the election date a month before the retirement date for Acting Chief Election Commissioner Neelkantha Uprety and a month before the retirement of Commissioners duo Dolakh Bahadur Gurung and Dr Ayodhi Prasad Yadav. Gani Ansari of Republica caught up with Yadav on Tuesday to talk about the challenges of holding new CA elections within the next six months. Excerpts: [break] The government has announced it is to hold an election for a new constituent assembly in November. Is it possible to conduct an election within the next six months? From the government side it is possible. That´s why the government has announced the new election. We have heard that political parties, which are major actors in the electoral process, have been saying there should be a correction in the process. And we, from our side, have been repeatedly telling different stakeholders that we can hold a new election; that there is no problem. But the most important things are legal tools and documents by means of which we can operate and manage the election. What are these legal tools and documents? One of the tools is the Interim Constitution, which needs to be amended. It has to readjust the cut-off date for the eligible voter age. Another important tool is the Act on Registration and Expenditures of Political Parties. We managed the political parties during the Constituent Assembly (CA) election in 2008 through the Election Commission Act and the Interim Constitution. But, we need a separate act this time. In the meantime, there should be consensus among the political parties regarding the new election. Otherwise, it will be like the local elections which were held during Gyanedra´s regime. So, if the legal documents are prepared and the political parties forge a consensus, can the EC carry out a new election? Of course! But, another thing I would like to tell you is that the election must be weather-friendly. So what about the Mangsir (November) date for the new election? Should the government reconsider the announced date? It is neither eco-friendly nor voter friendly. Yeah! The government should reconsider the date as it is harvest season for farmers. Can the political parties persuade the international community over financial and technical support for a CA election yet again? How could the nation afford to hold such an election again? I cannot comment on that as it does not fall within my jurisdiction. But we have not heard any comment from the international community. So, it is worth pondering whether we would receive massive support from the international community as during the 2008 election. If we decide to go for electronic voting, we will need support from the international community. They had assisted the EC in preparing ballot papers in the 2008 election. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35687 As the 10th edition of Tenzing Hillary Everest Marathon organized by Himalaya Expeditions successfully concluded at Namche Bazaar on Tuesday, Nabin Khatiwada of Republica had a telephonic conversation with Bikram Pandey, the president of the organizing company. Excerpts: [break] How did you conceive this event? It has an interesting story. We (Nepal) were marking the Mount Everest Golden Jubilee Celebration in 2003. I was the vice-president of Nepal Mountaineering Association (NMA) then. The government had formed a national committee and I had represented NMA in the committee, where I got the duty of event management. Then, I started brainstorming and came up with the idea of organizing a marathon. Then the committee decided to organize a marathon from the Everest Base Camp on May 19, 2003. We had named it Everest Marathon in the beginning. When we were at Namche Bazaar to organize the event, we met Tashi Tenzing, a grandson of Tenzing Norgay Sherpa. We requested him to be our chief guest and he accepted it. During his speech, he proposed to name the event after Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary, the first persons to scale Everest and everybody praised the idea. This is how we started the Tenzing Hillary Everest Marathon 10 years ago. What motivates you to conduct the event every year? As a tourism entrepreneur, I wanted to spread positive message about Nepal to foreigners. When we organized the event in 2003, conflict was on. International media were reporting only negative things about Nepal and tourism business was suffering. I thought organizing an international event could send out a positive message internationally. When we were organizing the event for the first time, we fortunately met a senior fellow from BBC at the base camp. He was with a British team that was in Nepal for the Golden Jubilee Celebration. He covered the marathon for the first time and the other international and national media gave the event a wide coverage. I was interested to continue the event. I discussed it with various associations, agencies and institutions but budget was a constraint. At the end, Himalaya Expeditions decided to continue the event. It was tough for us to conduct the first few editions but the marathon steadily gained popularity and we are doing well now. What is your experience of the last 10 editions? I always listened to the suggestions from locals, government agencies, experts to take the event forward. I was never looking for magical success. I invested major portion myself to conduct the event but always tried to make it a participatory event. How do you manage an event with such a huge participation? I am a tourism entrepreneur and a businessman but I am a Nepali first. I could have organized the marathon with big promotional investment and inviting experts and technical manpower from Europe, America or India. However, I preferred local experts. More than 100 foreigners participated this year. If the success continues, we will register 300 foreigners in the next edition. Few years back a visually-impaired person also took part in the marathon. I think it was only because we assured his family of his safety. What is the impact of the event on tourism at large? The marathon is progressing gradually. In tourism business, we cannot sit comfortably basking on short-term succcess. We have to keep on exploring new ideas. The marathon has helped business in Everest area flourish. Earlier, hotels and restaurants in the Everest area closed by May 5 every year. Now, the tourist season in the area continues till June 5 because of the marathon. We want to organize such events also to help local people generate income. Local people should be the major beneficiaries of such events. Do you have any other programs of similar type? Yes, we do. Such events not only promote sports but also contribute to the development of tourism. We are organizing Annapurna Marathon bi-annually in memory of Dr Harka Bahadur Gurung, the first tourism expert of the country and Maurice Herzog, the first person to scale Mt Annapurna who also became the first person to scale peaks over 8,000 meters on June 3, 1950. We had organized its first edition last year and we will organize the next edition on June 3, 2013. Likewise, we will organize the First Buddhist Marathon in Lumbini on December 5, 2012 to promote Lumbini. This event is being held on the initiative of the Thai ambassador to Nepal, as he was impressed after witnessing the last edition of Tenzing Hillary Everest Marathon. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35461 Nepali U-22 national team is in the later phase of preparations for the AFC U-22 Group D qualifiers to be held at the Dasharath Stadium, Kathmandu from June 2-10. Nepal has been drawn along with Jordan, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Bangladesh. This is the first edition of the tournament under this age group. Top two teams from the group and best second runner up from among all seven groups will qualify for the next stage. Republica´s Prajwal Oli caught up with coach Krishna Thapa at the Halchowk ground, after the team´s match against Nepal XI on Wednesday. Excerpts.[break] How is the training going on? The training is going on as planned. I have submitted my month-long training plans to ANFA and I have divided the training into two sections -- physical and tactical. The physical training concluded yesterday (Tuesday) after 20 days training and the tactical part that began today will run for the remaining time (10 days). All the players of the squad are fit and free from injuries. Overall the training is going on smoothly. When will the final squad be announced? We are working on that and the squad will be finalized shortly. May be tomorrow (Thursday) three players will be axed from the 27-member team. What is your team´s target? Our target is to qualify for the final round. And I am very much optimistic that we shall qualify for the final round. We have got an excellent team and we also have the advantage of being the host. What are the major strengths of your team? Each player is fit and individually skilful. Every department of the team is strong. Our forwards Bharat Khawas and Sujal Shrestha are strong and we also have a good set of midfielders consisting of midfielder Shiva Shrestha, Anil Ojha, Rupesh KC and Jagjeet Shrestha and others. We also have experienced defenders like Rohit Chand, Bikash Singh Chhetri, Rabin Shrestha, Deepak Bhusal, Sabindra Shrestha and others. Besides this, other members of the team, including team physiotherapist Nawal Gurung, manager Karma Tshering Sherpa and assistant manager Madhusudan Upadhyaya are hard working, friendly and supportive. What are the major drawbacks of your team? The boys are not technically sound. The marking is not good. I will work on this to improve this along with other tactical aspects. Do you have any other plans up your sleeve? Other than tactical part, I have requested ANFA to arrange at least two friendly matches with foreign teams. If we don´t get foreign teams we will play official matches with the senior national team as the qualifiers will begin after 10 days. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35458 The government has registered a bill seeking yet another extension of the Constituent Assembly term. What will be your position on the bill if put to vote? We will discuss this issue with all the parties. We will also ask the chairman (Pushpa Kamal Dahal) and Baburam (prime minister) why they took the decision without discussing the issue in the party and without garnering support from other parties. We will then decide our move.[break] In your opinion, should the CA term be extended? There is no reason to extend the CA term unless there is any change in the existing situation. If the term extension was necessary, the UCPN (Maoist) should have consulted other political parties and worked out a political solution. There should be no confusion that we are for a pro-people constitution. So, they should have sought views from other parties. Unfortunately, they did not. What would be the alternative to term extension? Let us find out an alternative to term extension through consultation with other parties. We should find out a political solution through consensus. So, should the CA be dissolved? Seeking alternative should not mean dissolution of CA. There is a need for consensus among all parties. How can the term be extended without consulting other parties? If Chairman Dahal decides to move ahead without your support, what will be your faction´s move? I do not want to say what we would do in that situation without consulting my comrades. But, it is necessary for us to take our position on the issue soon. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35457 The government and the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) on Tuesday signed a nine-point agreement. NEFIN had staged a three-day shutdown demanding identity-based provinces before signing the agreement. Gani Ansari of Republica caught up with NEFIN Chairman Rajkumar Lekhi on Wednesday to learn about what NEFIN would do next. Excerpts:[break] Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) signed a nine-point agreement with the government on Tuesday. Has the agreement addressed all your demands? We can´t say that the nine-point agreement addressed all our demands. We had signed such agreements even in the past. This is just the starting point. The government cannot fool all the people all the time by signing agreements just to abort agitations. The agreement says that the government will raise the issues, including the demand for ethnicity-based federalism, in parliament. What does that imply? The government cannot address all our demands as some of our demands can only be addressed through the CA and the Constitutional Committee. So, the government will raise those issues in parliament. How confident are you of the implementation of the nine-point agreement? If we continue to exert pressure on the government, the agreement will be implemented. We know very well that the government does not intend to implement it. But, the government cannot implement the issues outside its jurisdiction. Some of the issues should be implemented by the Constituent Assembly (CA). We have not concluded our movement as we know that the government and ruling parties may not remain honest to the agreement. All indigenous, marginalized and Madhesi communities, among other groups, have been demanding single identity-based provinces. Can you elaborate what a single identity-based province is? Conspiracy is being hatched to defame us. We have not demanded ethnic provinces. What we have demanded is provinces based on historic identity. But, senior political leaders misinterpreted us. Are single-identity-based provinces possible at the time when Nepali Congress and CPN-UML have been opposing the idea? NC and UML have already accepted identity-based provinces in the CA committee on state restructuring, though they have now been objecting to formation of such provinces. I hope NC and UML will not turn a deaf ear to the peoples´ demand. United Tharu Struggle Committee has said that it will announce protests on Thursday saying that the nine-point agreement is silent on undivided Tharuhat. Why did you not take them into confidence before signing the agreement? Even members of United Tharu Struggle Committee were present in the talks with the government. At last, how will NEFIN move ahead in the days to come? We have been focusing on constitution and federalism right now. In the meantime, we have been holding discussions regarding our programs across the country. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35361 US Ambassador Scott H DeLisi is leaving Nepal in the first week of June after spending two years in Nepal. Kiran Chapagain caught up with him last Tuesday at his office to share his experiences while in Nepal, his observations on the Maoist party and Facebook diplomacy, among other things. [break] EXCERPTS How was your recent trip to Mustang? I thought it was a fantastic trip. The rugged beauty of the country is really striking and so different from many things we have seen elsewhere in Nepal. It was a reminder of the tremendous ethnic and cultural diversity. I expected to find another unique cultural experience. What surprised me a little bit is the richness of the artistic culture in Mustang. Your predecessor, Ambassador Nancy J. Powell, had also visited Mustang just before she left Nepal. How should we take this? You should assume that it means you have had two ambassadors in a row who had a spirit of adventure, who loved Nepal and who wanted to see your country. Ambassador Powell had gone up to Mustang to see the start of our efforts to do cultural preservation. She only saw the beginning of the process in addition to some of the works the American Himalayan Foundation and others are doing there. I went up there so that I could see the conclusion of the work. It is important for us that when we do these sorts of project we actually go and see how they come out—was the work done right? Is this having an impact in the communities? That is why I was there. And a desire to see more of your country. When we go to that higher altitude you get different birds. I am a bird watcher. How are you going to remember Nepal? What are things, you think, you are going to miss? I will remember Nepal mostly in terms of the people of this nation. That is exactly what I am going to miss. I have spoken of the beauty of the country and how much we have enjoyed all the wonderful things we have seen and done. But underlying all of that are the people of this country. I have found over the years that the people of Nepal are some of the most gracious, resilient, open, generous people that I have met anywhere in the world in my 30-year career. This is the theme that I hear again and again from visitors to this country and from all the friends of Nepal around the world. People come because of the natural beauty. They stay or they come back because of the people. That is what I will remember the most. Any plan to visit Nepal in the future? Absolutely, not necessarily in an official capacity. But my wife and I have talked about this and I would have to say that, for us, we certainly do not feel we are through with Nepal and I hope Nepal is not through us. This is a country that will stay in our hearts. As a tourist, as a visitor, I will come back to find the spiny babbler. Before coming to Nepal you had told a senate hearing committee that “we got the Maoists a mixed bag”. How do you see the Maoist party after two years of your engagement with them? Are they still a mixed bag? The relationship with the Maoists has gone undergone tremendous change over the past two years. I think the change was already underway when I arrived here and we have been able to continue. We have continued to have a very constructive dialogue with the Maoist party and in the process of that dialogue we have come to understand each other better and also to witness changes are taking place. For me, the fundamental point when I’ve engaged with the Maoists has been to say to them that I would judge them not by what they said but by what they did. And I will tell you that I see there has been tremendous progress. I see the steps they have taken, not they alone, in conjunction with other political parties, to bring us to the point where we are today, where the peace process is essentially completed, where the cantonments are virtually empty, and where remaining Maoists will be integrated into the military. Two years ago, that dialogue was not happening, the issues in the constitution were many and were not being discussed and the mistrust that existed between the parties was so strong, that having a dialogue was very difficult. So I see tremendous progress and I think a part of that can be attributed to the Maoists and the actions they have taken. I give them credit for the movement they have made. I feel that our relationship is a more constructive one. I think that across the board our message has been the same, though, to the Maoists, to the Congress, to the UML, to the Madhesis, to any of the parties—our commitment and our interest is not parties per se, our interest is Nepal and Nepal’s future, and to seeing a stable, prosperous and democratic country that respects human rights. Despite the “tremendous changes”, the Maoists continue to feature in the specifically designated terrorist organization list of the State Department. How much is the pressure from the Maoists to take them off the list? Will the recent takeover of the cantonments and Maoist army by the government help expedite the process? We have made it clear to the party that we are engaged in a process of reviewing their status and they understand that. I think that our colleagues in the Maoist party also know that it is a sincere review on part of the United States government. We’ve explained, though, at the same time that this is a complex process within our government and involves many agencies of the United States government. It is not just the Department of State, it involves the entire intelligence community, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, many different agencies. We know it will take some time and I think the party leadership is very much aware of that. But they also know that we are making very, very careful and considerable review, given the tremendous progress they have made. The continued movement by the Maoist party in the right direction, their efforts to finally conclude the peace process, to conclude the constitution drafting process, to be part of a democratic government, certainly that is something we look at very closely when we make these decisions. We look very much at what they are doing. I think it has been a very constructive movement on the part of the party. I know that my colleagues in Washington are taking all that into account. I hope the review will be completed as soon as possible. They know it is underway and they know the result will be forthcoming and they know we will give it a fair and objective hearing. One of the agendas of your term here was to “vigorously work with Nepal’s political leaders to end the culture of impunity”. How far, do you think, you achieved that goal? This remains very much a part of the dialogue with the government. That is not to say there has not been progress—there has been progress. We have seen the CIAA taking on a greater role at times. We have seen former police chiefs who have been convicted. We have also seen ministers, including a sitting minister, convicted and sent to jail. We have seen continued dialogue among the parties on the issues of truth and reconciliation and disappearances. We know this is an ongoing process. I think it is incredibly important for Nepal’s future as a democratic society and also to attract investment. We will continue to stand for basic human rights on every level. Besides other things, the US sees Nepal as a strategic country to engage both China and India on some key issues of regional importance. What is your experience in this regard? Nepal is strategically located and sits between two very large, two very important countries. But our focus on Nepal is not because Nepal sits between India and China; our focus on Nepal is because we have a partnership with Nepal. We care about this nation and we want to engage with Nepal on the merits of our relationship; not because of what we think Nepal might or might not be able to do, what role you may play vis-à-vis your neighbors. I think the important thing for Nepal, when we talk about your strategic location, is to realize what great opportunities it does present for the nation in terms of the economy in particular and partnerships in terms of trade and development. We want to engage with Nepal on merits of our relationship; not on the basis of what role you play vis-à-vis your neighbors. The US has shifted its policy to the Asia and Pacific region. What does this policy change mean for a country like Nepal? I do not know if it means that much for Nepal. We have been engaged here and we have had a good partnership. It has been a growing partnership for many years. I do not think that is going to change. We are going to continue to be a good partner for Nepal, no matter what. Our interest in the Asia Pacific region makes great sense. But for Nepal, I think we are going to continue to do business as a good friend, as a good partner. Was there any progress in implementing the US’s policy on the Tibetan refugee resettlement program during your term? Our focus has not been on resettlement during my term here. Our focus is very basic and fundamental: protection of basic human rights of refugees, whether they are Bhutanese or Tibetans or urban refugees. We know that these populations are among the most vulnerable and refugees’ human rights must be protected. Their interests have to be protected and there has to be that effort to ensure that refugees are given opportunity to live lives of dignity, lives of achievement and lives where they can be fulfilled. This has been my focus. Last summer an American business delegation had visited Nepal. What are the areas of interest for American businesses in Nepal? First, the delegation was very successful. We’ve seen a tremendous outpouring of interest that has not yet translated into full scale investment. But I’m heartened by how much interest there is in Nepal and some of the companies that did visit are doing much more here in terms of sales and they’re looking at the potential for the future. We also see people looking toward civil aviation, medical sector, energy sector and also the information technology sector. Your decision to keep organizers of banda on the embassy’s visa watch list was both lauded and criticized from various quarters. What prompted you to take such a decision? How do you take those criticisms? People are entitled to their views. You will never please everyone. Those who wish to be critical are free to be critical. I will be honest, it does not bother me in the least. These two issues have become conflated. They are in some ways two different issues. On the one hand, I absolutely do believe that bandas are an unhelpful tool and they are not part of political discourse, they are part of political violence and political intimidation and I don’t believe they have a place in a democratic society. There are other ways to express political views in a non-violent fashion. I will remain opposed to bandas. That is my view and my government’s as well. We make no apology for that. The issue of visas, the simple fact is that we have our criteria for visa. This existed before there were bandas in Nepal and before we spoke about the bandas. Fundamentally, those who engage in political violence can be found ineligible for visas. Their actions to engage in political violence, to engage in this sort of political intimidation could have consequences under our law. It was not about taking a decision, our visa laws and regulations existed for long time, we were merely telling them that your conduct puts you at risk of falling afoul of those visa laws. But I am not afraid to say that. Let us talk about Facebook diplomacy. With almost 14,000 friends on the Facebook page, what is your experience of using Facebook for diplomacy? It has been a fascinating experience for me. This is a new undertaking for us and for diplomats around the world. But the fact of the matter is this tool is there, it is not going to go away. If we want to understand what the young people are thinking, if we want to share our perspectives and hear theirs’, we have to find different tools to do business. The days when ambassadors could successfully do their jobs by just talking to the government, to the ministers and to the political leaders and maybe the business elite, I do not think that is possible anymore. We have to broaden our engagement and we have to hear from more elements within society. Facebook has been a tremendous tool for us to do exactly that. I have learned so much about your country in talking to the young people on my Facebook page. I have also learned not just from my conversations, but when I post something, I can observe and listen to the debate that people have on the page among themselves. I learn a bit about your country, what people are concerned about, what they aspire to, where they want their nation to go. It has been very instrumental. I know it has been rewarding for me. It is a different role for diplomats. This is a different type of diplomacy. Some people say “oh, what are you doing?” and I am still trying to figure that out sometimes. But overall I have not a single regret. I am delighted to use it. I think it has made a difference on how people perceive our embassy. I think they hear directly from us and recognize the US government is interested and that we care. Any final word? Just a heartfelt appreciation to the people of Nepal, to all the friends we have made and colleagues for their support, friendship. It has been a tremendously good experience. I have a sense of satisfaction that the relationship between the United States and Nepal continues to be strong. I think it has moved forward more effectively and I’m pleased with that. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=35022 Vinesh Nair is the vice president, global marketing and communication, of Xpress Money -- a UK-based remittance company. He was recently in Nepal to launch Xpress Money Eco-Everest Expedition 2012 -- a clean-up campaign on Mount Everest -- in partnership with Asian Trekking. In an interview with Republica, he discussed the company´s role in the Mount Everest clean-up expedition and company´s experience in Nepal. Excerpts: [break] How much are you spending on the Everest clean-up campaign? At this point, we are spending in excess of US$15,000. But we will contribute more if the need arises. We believe it is just the beginning and we understand what it takes to make the campaign successful. We are very committed to it and we want to continue this partnership. Are you implying that the company plans to support the event in the years to come? Yes of course. We have spoken to the expedition team here and we know the journey they have embarked on is genuine, worthwhile and very well-planned. Besides, the expedition consists of a team that is very experienced and the person who is leading the expedition (Apa Sherpa) has been to the Everest summit for a record 21 times. So we definitely intend to be a part of it in the future. Let´s talk about the company now. How do you see remittance market in Nepal? Nepal is one of the top 20 countries in terms of revenue generation for Xpress Money. The county receives remittances of $3.5 billion per year. With an agent network in over 6,000 locations in the country and 26 agent partners onboard, we believe we bring a significant chunk of money to the country. And in the last four years since we entered Nepal, we have made significant inroads into this market. We see a promising future for Nepal. But there is a huge competition in the market isn´t it as there are experienced players who have been in the business long before you joined the race? Yes there is huge competition. But we believe the reason why the company has been successful in just 12 years of its existence is that we have a clear roadmap. In 12 years, we have managed to expand our business to 135,000 locations in 125 countries and by 2015 we intend to be on every country on the planet. Besides, we have very clear product offerings, which include cash to cash and cash to account facilities. All the companies have those product line-up. So what gives your company the edge? Our biggest advantage is that we work very closely with customers on countries from where the money is sent and in the country that receives the money. This is because you need to understand what customers want. At the same time we also work closely with agent partners as they play a critical role in delivering the quality of service that the company envisages. But at the end of the day everything boils down to cost isn´t it, since most of your clients are migrant workers who cannot afford to fork out huge sums? You will be surprised but many people are willing to pay a certain premium for certain experience they want. Would you like to have your cash delivered at the time you want or pay little less and face a lot of problems? You can compare our service charges with some of the biggest players on earth and our rates are far more competitive. That´s why many customers are switching to Xpress Money. You´ve been in Nepal for four years. How is the business growing over the years? We do not disclose the revenue that Nepal is generating for the company. But in terms of revenue and customer growth rate, it has been significant. Any future plans for Nepal? Currently, we are offering cash to cash and cash to account services. In future, we are planning to increase product offerings and introduce services such as mobile payment. We will be providing the platform to our agents to deliver these services, as our focus is on providing convenience to our customers. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=34931 As we went to press, political parties were busy in hectic last-minute parleys to settle the remaining issues of government form, and more crucially, state restructuring. Meanwhile, there are protests and bandas being organized right around the country demanding certain provinces/ regions in the new federal set up. Among the most contentious of the state restructuring issues has been the question of Undivided Far-west and the competing claim for Tharuhat state. Thira L Bhusal and Biswas Baral caught up with Nepali Congress lawmaker Ramesh Lekhak, who has been campaigning for Undivided Far-west and CPN-UML lawmaker Mahesh Chaudhary, who has been raising his voice for a Tharuhat state spanning from Nawalparasi to Kanchanpur in the Tarai belt.[break] Far-west sans Tarai unviable Can you give us an overview of the ongoing protests for undivided Far-west? It started when Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal proposed a 10-state model during the current round of political negotiations. In that model, the Far-west comprising of nine districts in Seti and Karnali zones was divided such that the seven hill districts were kept under one province while the lower districts of Kailali and Kanchanpur were enlisted under another. The people of the Far-west believe that all nine districts in the two Far-west zones should be included in a single province. There are also many misunderstands regarding the protests. For instance, some critics of undivided Far-west argue: at a time the country is going to be federated, how can old demarcations be kept intact? The protests are for retention of nine districts and two zones under a new province, which will be a part of the federation. When we are asking for a new province, how can we be against federalism? The Far-west has been shut down for over two weeks. Why have there been no meaningful dialogues? First, you have to understand why there have been protests in favor of an undivided Far-west. This is a protest against the state´s continued neglect and bias against the region. In other parts of the country, if even a small criminal outfit commits some crime, the state takes it as a political crime and the Peace Ministry rolls out red carpet for talks with those criminal outfits. But when tens of thousands of people have come out in the Far-west to put forth their demand, at a time when the Far-west had been shut down for weeks, the government chose to do nothing. Only after 11 days was a talks team formed. What was the government doing for the first 11 days? There is a criticism that protests for undivided Far-west have set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country. First, you have to understand the issues behind the protests in the Far-west. Maoist Chairman Dahal said he would keep Kailali and Kanchanpur in the new Tharuhat state. Madhesi leaders want to keep the two districts within the single Madhesh province. But Kailali and Kanchanpur have never been part of Madhesh, nor were they ever under Tharus . We decided to draw the federal map on the basis of identity and capacity. Take the issue of identity: The Far-west is the only region in the country where people with same ethnicity, culture and language are in an absolute majority. If you look up the history of Far-west, there is no evidence that the region was ever in Madhesh or Tharuhat. If you consider geography, besides the sole bridge at Karnali, there is no other link between the Far-west and rest of Nepal. Thus this region makes up a geographical area of special kind. It is for all these reasons that the region wants to stay undivided. Tharu leaders have said that as the area between Nawalparasi and Kanchanpur is the main base of Tharus, no model that separates the area form Tharuhat would be acceptable. They have every right to make claims. But they have to come up with historical basis why the two districts should come under Tharuhat. For instance, Dang district had a Tharu king. But the kingdom never reached Kailali and Kanchanpur. There is an argument that if Kailali and Kanchanpur are kept within the Far-west, Tharus in the two districts will not benefit from the new setup. This is not true. The Ranas and Dangora Tharus in the two districts will benefit more in the Far-west. When we make Far-west a single province, we have to grant special rights to the janajatis and indigenous nationalities, in areas ranging from employment, scholarships, health, and political representation. In that case, the Dangoras and Rana in Kailali and Kanchanpur will be the biggest indigenous groups in the region, and hence liable to maximum benefits. But if the districts are included in Tharuhat, Rana Tharus will be the smallest indigenous group in the region. This is why 90 percent of Rana Tharus who are concentrated in Kailali and Kanchanpur are in favor of retaining the two Tarai districts in the Far-west. In terms of the number of CA members, how many are in favor of a single Far-west and how many in favor of the proposed Tharuhat? Currently, most CA members from the Far-west belong to the Maoist party. Although there is division within the Maoists regarding, the majority are in favor of a Tharuhat state including Kailali and Kanchanpur. Within Nepali Congress, all but one CA member is in favor of retention of the two districts in Far-west. Within CPN-UML, all CA members are in favor of retention of two districts in Far-west. But since the Maoists are dominant in the legislature, the agenda of Tharuhat has been strongly raised. Now, you tell me: Currently, of the total taxes, 70-80 percent is raised in Kailali and Kanchanpur. If the two districts break away, how will the hilly region above sustain itself? Can there be a meeting point between competing demands of undivided Far-west and Tharuhat? We can agree on formation of a single province from Bardiya to Nawalparasi. This region has Tharus as its dominant group. So this region can be declared a Tharu province with its capital in Dang, the main habitation of Dangora Tharus while Kailali and Kanchanpur are retained with the Far-west. The other idea is also to retain the two districts within the Far-west, with declaration of special/protected areas for those pockets with thick Tharu populations. The third option is a political negotiation with local Tharu leaders and communities, to settle on what can be done to promote Tharu language and culture in the two districts within Far-West. Likewise, provisions to ensure Tharu representation in regional assembly can be ensured along with other special rights. If they say, no, we still want to divide the Far-west, even more problems will be added to the existing list. The economic hardships of the people in the region will get worse. Such a Far-west will be weak and dysfunctional and it will have little say in national politics. Some say demands like undivided Far-west is reflection of Mahendra´s brand of nationalism. Nepali congress is in favor of an undivided Far-west. Those who accuse the party of following on Mahenda´s footsteps are the same folks who were being cultivated by King Mahendra even as Congress was fighting against the autocratic Panchayat regime. ----------------------------------------------- It’s a mirror of feudalism How do you view the demand for an undivided Far-west? Nepal’s constitution says only the country is indivisible. The whole aim behind state restructuring is to end discrimination based on language, ethnicity, religion and geography. Of the total population in Kailali, 42 percent are Tharus. In Kanchanpur, they make up for 23 percent of the total population. If you take out these two districts, how can a viable Tharuhat province ever be formed? Dr. Harka Gurung in 1967 brought a regional development policy, according to which he divided the country into five development regions on the basis of viability and geography. At that time, a country was thought to be successful if it was economically powerful. Now, the very notion of development has changed. Now it is held that if a county has an energetic and competent manpower, which can best harness local resources, such countries are deemed successful. Dr Gurung’s division is no longer relevant in the changed context. Now, the marker is human development. Unless all people are empowered to pursue their own destiny, such a country cannot be called developed. Can you categorically state your differences with the proposed undivided Far-west? One, it is against the constitution since the statute only provisions for an indivisible Nepal. The demand for undivided Far-west is against the spirit of the models proposed by both the CA committee on restructuring as well as the State Restructuring Commission´s proposed majority model. It also goes against the spirit of Jana Andolan II, which aimed to institute a political order devoid of discriminations based on ethnicity, language and geography. The indivisible Far-west demand is a reflection of a feudalist mindset. Remember, it was the rich who first descended from the Hills to buy up lands in the Tarai. The others came much later. It is this same group of the rich which now controls the state and its resources. If such was not the case, why would 22 lawmakers from the Hill community oppose undivided Far-west? But it seems there is strong public for an undivided Far-west. If the show of strength is any indicator, there has been no small support for Tharu movement either. You have said that the identity of Tharus would be under threat in an undivided Far-west. How so? When you refer to Tharus of the Tarai, you have to understand that other inhabitants in the region belonging to smaller janajati and indigenous communities are the descendents of the original Tharu community. In terms of population, the most thickly populated area in the Far-west is Kailali district. If this district is to be included in the Far-west, how can any viable Tharuhat province take shape? In your opinion, which areas should the proposed Tharuhat state include? During the Geographic Information System mapping, the Maoists included Dang, Kailali, Kanchanpur, Banke and Bardia in its proposed Tharuhat state. This was during the time of the insurgency. If the Maoists had not raised the agenda of Tharuhat back then, this problem would not have assumed such big proportions. In the Maoist bid to shore up support for Tharuhat during the insurgency, many people have scarified their lives. Now can a member of the same party (Maoists´ Lekhraj Bhatta) say that such a province is not possible? I believe the area between Nawalparasi and Kanchanpur should be declared Tharuhat province. Besides, all important UN declarations as well as ILO 169 give indigenous populations the right to self-determination. Tharus were the original settlers and farmers in the Tarai belt. Then the Rana rulers started distributing the best lands among their near and dear ones. This turned the native inhabitants into bonded laborers. It is to protect against such discrimination that international conventions ensure the rights of original inhabitants. Since the livelihood of Tharus is dependent on land and water resources, they have to be given the right to self-determination over these resources. Before the state decides on important changes in areas of their inhabitation, it must seek prior approval of the Tharus. What happens if the two districts are kept within Far-west while the rights of the indigenous people are also guaranteed under ILO 169? It does not work like that. India, after 65 years of independence, is still grappling with demands for new states. If such a provision is implemented in Nepal, the state of conflict in the Far-west is unlikely to abate. There is a belief that if the lower Tarai districts are disconnected from Far-west, people in the hilly districts up above will be deprived of vital access to lower Tarai and India. If such was the case, why would 22 hill-based lawmakers ask for Khaptad state without Kailali and Kanchanpur? So far as the top political leaders are concerned, they will obviously speak in favor of undivided Far-west since they hold lucrative properties their; it also gives them the option to run for election from multiple constituencies. They have not bothered to learn about the aspirations of the people living in Far-west. Their wish is to make Far-west a colonial outpost. In the current debate between the Tharuhat and Far-west what can be the meeting point? As a communist, I consider two models of state restructuring: a coming together model and a holding together model. In the former USSR adopted the coming together model whereby 16 different countries were amalgamated into a federation, while giving each country the right to secede if they so desired in the future. China´s is a holding together model, where the states agree to work together. We have been advocating for a holding together model in Nepal. Yes, one state might have disproportional resources, but in that case, the center can provision for some resources to be transferred to the states with fewer resources. Thus is the model which has to be adopted here. So far as a meeting point is concerned, the map passed by the majority of SRC with two Tarai regions can be the only meeting point. Anyone can demand anything, but a legitimate demand has to have sound basis. Identity was the basis of the SRC majority model as well as CA committee´s model, decided on the basis of Geographic Information System mapping. On what basis are they proposing an undivided Far-west? http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=34720 Qatar Airways - the national carrier of Qatar - is flying 28 times a week between Doha and Kathmandu, offering connectivity to more than 100 destinations across the world. Samiksha Koirala of Republica caught up Ramdas Shivram, country manager of Qatar Airways, to talk about the airline´s expansion plan and the challenges of operating in Nepal. Excerpts: What makes Qatar Airways different from other international airlines operating in Nepal? We are the only five star airlines operating in Nepal. We were also voted as the best airlines in the world in 2011. What do you think are the challenges in places like Nepal for international company like yours? The basic challenge in Nepal is the poor aviation infrastructure. The only international here airport doesn´t operate for 24 hours. Air traffic congestion could have been managed by operating the airport round the clock. Lack of proper facilities like shuttle bus and taxi services are the other problems. Would you like to share us your expansion plan? As part of our expansion plan, we added seven additional flights a week to and from Kathmandu from October last year. We are positive about further expanding our flights. Qatar Airways currently operates a modern fleet of 108 aircrafts to 113 key business and leisure destinations worldwide. Last year was a landmark for us as we inducted 15 new destinations to our network. As part of expansion plan, we are launching flights to 11 new destinations, which include Zagreb in Croatia, Perth in Australia, Mombassa in Kenya, Yangon in Myanmar and Helsinki in Finland among others. We have placed orders worth over $50 billion for more than 250 aircraft including Boeing 787s, 777s and Airbus A350s. The rapid expansion of the airlines has prompted the State of Qatar to embark on one of its biggest project -- the construction of new international airport in Doha -- which is scheduled to open this year. How was your performance during Nepal Tourism Year (NTY) 2011? What is the target for the upcoming year? We enjoyed average occupancy of 89 percent last year. As our total capacity has increased, our target is to retain the same occupancy level this year. Which segment of market are you focusing more on? We are equally focusing on all the segments, which include business travelers, tourist, VFR (visiting-friends and relatives) and workers. Migrant workers comprise 20-25 percent of our total passengers, whereas others are returning passengers. This means, our contribution in bringing foreign tourists to the country is on the rise. Do you think direct air connectivity between Kathmandu and Doha is helping bring tourists from Qatar to Nepal? Not only from Qatar, we have been bringing tourists from Europe, North America, South America and GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries. Qatar based expatriate are also visiting Nepal in large numbers particularly for trekking, touring and golfing. The number of outbound tourist has gone up in recent years. Has your company been successful in inviting Nepali travelers to Qatar through tour packages? Yes indeed. We recently introduced stopover package called ´City Tour´ where passengers can stop by for a day or two while in Doha. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=34648 Former mayor of Kathmandu Valley, Keshav Sthapit, has been appointed the head of Kathmandu Valley Town Development Authority (KVTDA), which is tasked with leading the drive to expand roads and to coordinate development efforts in Kathmandu. During his tenure as mayor beginning 1997, Sthapit quickly developed a reputation as a hands-on bureaucrat who could push through projects like Maitighar Mandala against strong political opposition. Biswas Baral caught up with Sthapit at the sidelines of a heated hearing session at City Hall where the ex-mayor was busy answering an irate group from Ratopul, Kathmandu, that was demanding explanation for the demolition of their roadside properties.[break] What are your major responsibilities as the chief of Kathmandu Valley Town Development Authority? Right now, there are so many development agencies working here that it is hard to know who is doing what. There is considerable overlap and duplication, which means unnecessary drainage of budget. This is where the KVTDA steps in. KVTDA is the coordinating mechanism among these bodies. It is a holistic approach to town development which coordinates planning and lays out clear jurisdiction for each agency. But implementation will be left to the development agencies. What we will be doing is monitoring them, bringing them into a system. Take the Melamchi drinking water project. The government says it is keen on bringing water from Melamchi. But people of Lalitpur and Bhaktapur say they didn´t need water arranged for by ´colonialists´. KVTDA will help reconcile these competing demands. Won´t the authority´s broad mandate of maintaining oversight over such a vast network of development agencies complicate things further? No. Consider the Bagmati river system which flows through Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur districts. In such a case of multiple jurisdictions, a coordinating body like KVTDA will be vital in any collective effort to clean up Bagmati waters. Or take the issue of squatters. They are scattered all over the valley. I have started a dialogue with the slum dwellers. The chief of the Slum Dwellers International is now here. He had expressed his interest in formation of 1,000 transit camps. There is a big land area at Sallaghari, Bhaktapur, which could be a site for the camps. If this can be achieved, we will be able to shift those now residing by Bagmati in a month, month and a half. Similarly, there is a 1,000-ropani public plot in Panga, Kirtipur, which can be developed into a sports complex, a film city and an artistic venue and where the urban poor can be relocated. When a city is created, it will develop its own markets. You seem to have lots of plans for Kathmandu. But what are your priority areas? All development works should be our priority because they are interrelated. We have qualified bureaucrats and technocrats in the country. If we give them the responsibility to harness a particular development project, they are capable of doing it. Say, we want to develop the former royal properties at Nagarjuna into a tourist center. If we ask the private sector, I am sure they will come up with 50 different proposals. Our job is only as a facilitator. We will facilitate projects across the board so as to bring important actors together. Another important area will be clean up of Bagmati. All the organizations working for its conversation will be brought under one umbrella and a joint Bagmati declaration issued. Within three or four years, we will be able to dip our feet in its cool waters. Kathmandu wears a devastated look as roadside infrastructures have been demolished but construction of new road is yet to begin. When will this process start? What I have been saying is that let us remove the debris and at least gravel the roads before the onset of monsoon. If you follow my approach, the debris will take care of itself. KVTDA will only give orders; it will be private players who will be carrying out the task. Let us say a private constructor cleans up the place and puts in place sewerage disposal facilities at either side of the road. Drinking water pipes can be similarly laid on either side, instead of the current situation where they run under the middle of the road. All this will be done with the investment of the private sector. Now, the local constructor can make up for the cost, even earn a profit, by, say, charging two rupee each from motorbikes plying that stretch of the road. If such schemes can be worked out, everybody will participate. But all these look like long-term plans. How do you take care of the more immediate concerns? No, this is a short-term plan which will go into implementation stage within a month. If we can persuade locals that they have a historic chance to participate in an important project, they will come forward by themselves. Recently, a delegation from a locality by Tukucha river visited me. Earlier, this same group of people complained of dozers leveling their neighborhood, but now they want the roads widened themselves so that they could benefit from bigger roads and increased land value. If they feel their little effort will make a big difference, they are likely to collaborate. Thus we have to give due importance to people´s aspirations. You were famous as a hands-on mayor who would not shun from dirtying his hands to carry out vital tasks. But with the country going through a difficult transition, do you believe unstable political climate will mar your efforts? No, in fact, it makes it easier. For instance, if some politician says he is against the clean-up and development of Tukucha area, his career is finished. Anybody who stands against any of our development plans will be seen by the people as an impediment to development of modern Kathmandu. Thus I expect to get full cooperation form bureaucrats and politicians. Ask a retired bureaucrat and he will tell you eagerly about the achievements he chalked up during his tenure. Those are the highlights of his career. There are tens of thousands of such people across the country. One man brought a 50-point plan for the development of Bhaisepati, Lalitpur yesterday. He brought it to me, he said, because he did not have access to those in power. He complained that government bodies simply didn´t listen to people like him. There was another person who was interested in installing 800 beautiful solar-panel lampposts in Kathmandu before the CA term deadline ends May 27. He said that he wanted to bring light to the country, literally, to coincide with the arrival of the new constitution. If people start taking such initiatives, my work is finished. How do you see Kathmandu five years down the road, when your tenure as KVTDA chief ends? Very vibrant. Very sexy. People will be amazed at the city´s transformation. This is the message those visiting Kathmandu will take back home. A cultural hub, a clean and developed city with moderate climate: this is what they will tell their folks back home. Where else do you get this combination? This is my challenge: If a million tourists arrive in Kathmandu now, three million will in five years´ time. For Kathmandu is a piece of jewel on earth. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=34266 Negotiations over contentious issues in the new constitution have entered their last leg. As we went to press, there seemed to be agreements on all important issues among major parties except on state restructuring. Speaker Subas Chandra Nembang has called for next CA meeting for April 26, before which, it is hoped, all major issues would have been settled. In this context Thira L Bhusal and Biswas Baral talked to Nembang on the possibility of a constitution by May 27 and the state of ongoing negotiations. [break] Can you give us an overview of the state of constitutional process right now? As of today, political parties have been trying to sort out the issues in the Constitutional Committee´s sub-committee for dispute resolution, both through formal and informal meetings. The next CA meeting has been called for April 26. Political parties have assured they will sort out the issues before that. There is very little time left. Will the CA be able to follow through on its timetable in the remaining time? What we have to keep in mind is that even after the last six-month extension of CA, peace process and constitution making were linked. The major parties were adamant that the peace process be completed before entering negotiations on constitution. This poisoned the atmosphere for negotiations. Thus, for the most of last six months, the constitution making process was completely blocked. In this situation, I have been telling parties we could follow procedures under article 70 of the Interim Constitution. A shorter method has to be adopted as there is no alternative to coming up with the constitution by May 27. When there is an agreement, the CC has to prepare an integrated draft. We have been discussing about how this should be done. The CC has already instructed the CA secretariat to carry on ancillary work on constitution. Various constitutional and legal experts have also been helping with this process. The CA secretariat is ready. Once there are policy-level agreements among parties, they can be implemented without ado. There is a big concern among the people that they might not get enough time to deliberate on and make suggestions on draft constitution. We will take the draft constitution before the people for discussions. No doubt, the larger the number of people we can take the draft to, the more inclusive the final constitution will be. We have planned with a view to taking the draft to the people and getting CA members to visit all 75 districts. So far as the limited time for discussion among the public is concerned, I believe the political parties will be able to sort things out pretty soon so that the time for public discussion can be prolonged. Another common concern is that instead of making the constitution making process truly inclusive, all the major issues are being settled behind closed doors. Since political parties have not been able to come to agreements on time, even our previous work carried out through consultations with the common people has been overshadowed. Throughout the constitution making exercise, we have tried to reach the maximum number of people. The rest of the world has praised this inclusive approach. So far as collecting suggestions from people both at personal and institutional levels is concerned, I am receiving suggestions even today. Every day, we get at least four or five such recommendations. Besides this, we want to take the final draft to the people. Thus it is not that there have been no efforts to include suggestions of common folks. But we are also concerned that the process of collecting suggestions on the final draft might be hampered if the window of available time continues to shrink. There have also been allegations against you that you have failed to take up vital debate in the CA and instead relied on top leaders to settle issues inside closed doors. I think there is a lack of understanding here. The 601-member CA cannot as a single entity take up the whole task of constitution making at one time. This is the reason we divided the CA into various committees which subsequently carried out their respective duties. After a certain point, the whole responsibility for the constitution came to the Constitutional Committee. If we had been able to hammer out needed compromises on time, this question would never have been raised. But as the political parties have failed to come to agreements and these issues remained with the Constitutional Committee for a long time, it might seem the CA members not in the CC have been left out. I believe these debates rise because of the failure to understand the constitutional process and work division among CA members. Without a broad-based agreement, we might get a draft constitution in the next few days, but it will then be a tall order to clear contentious provisions with two-third majority in CA. Still, people seem to have reservation with the process of settling constitutional disputes among top party leaders, many of them unelected, rather by their elected representatives in the CA. We believe in a party-based democracy. That is why we conducted the CA polls on party basis. Even in our documents, we have provisioned for the political process to be taken ahead on party basis. Since the process has to be settled at the political level, it is natural that top leaders are involved in vital discussions. If we are saying that issues which cannot be settled at top political level can be settled through discussions at lower levels, such expectations are unrealistic. We must understand this situation. At the same time, it is also important that political leaders involved in negotiations also do not undermine the integrity and norms of CA. With only a month to go for the expiry of CA deadline, there are speculations that we will, at best, only be able to get a draft constitution by May 27. On May 27, there must be a complete constitution, not just a draft. There is no alternative to this. The Interim Constitution provisions for promulgation of new constitution by the Constitution Assembly in order to consolidate the gains of all pro-democratic movements in the country´s history. The Interim Constitution does not envision a situation where there will be no constitution. Let me reiterate that there is no alternative to the CA promulgating a complete constitution May 27. The political parties must negotiate with this goal in mind. What if there are agreements on major issues but some minor issues are yet to be settled by May 27. Is a limited extension of CA term possible in that case? Look, I am very clear on this. We shouldn´t even think about another CA term extension. One day, we hear that agreements have been reached on important issues but the very next day we hear political leaders say that there have been no agreements. In this context, how hopeful are you that the country will have a complete constitution by May-end? What we have to keep in mind is that there was considerable mistrust among the political parties as the peace process failed to make any headway. But with the process now nearly complete, this distrust has been considerably reduced. In this situation, there is no alternative for the parties but to promulgate the constitution on time. With the peace process nearly over, they have no excuse not to bring out the constitution on time. What happens if there is no agreement on May 27? Will you go for voting in the CA? I don´t foresee such an eventuality. Yes, there might be voting on small issues even while the major ones have been settled. But the political parties have told me that by that time there will be no disagreements on major issues. The goal is to prevent voting on important issues. Without a broad-based agreement, we might still get a draft constitution in the next few days, but it will be a tall order to clear contentious provisions with the required two-third majority in the CA. There can be no such majority without the main political blocks standing on the same platform. The time for taking the draft constitution to the people has been significantly curtailed. Doesn´t that undermine the constitution´s legitimacy? I don´t think questions will be raised on the constitutionality of such a document. Still, I believe that the document should be taken to as wide a population as possible. We aim to take it to the people through national gazette and various media outlets to make people feel ownership of the document. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=34243 Ryokichi Hirono, Professor Emeritus of Seiki University, is a well regarded economist of Japan. He has served in different policy making bodies in Japan and also worked in agencies like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and UN system. As a person who has traveled places teaching economics and giving lectures on pertinent issues, Hirono recently made special presentation on Investment Promotion in Kathmandu. In an interview with Milan Mani Sharma of Republica, Hirono talked at length on how Nepal can establish itself as a lucrative investment destination for overseas investors. Excerpts[break] Even though Japan is one of the leading bilateral donors, Nepal has received small portion of Japanese investment. Why is that so? Nepal has low Japanese private investment because only a small portion of Japanese investors know about Nepal. For investments to make way into a country, investors must know the country well as cultural and language gaps work as huge psychological barriers. Second major factor is incentives. After all, businesses are profit oriented and investors must be told about profit-making opportunities in the country. Third is the work culture compatibility and comfort of doing business. Nepal has not managed to win as much Japanese investment because of the shortfall in these areas. What should Nepal do to overcome these constraints? Both the government and the private sector should play an active role. In 1950s when Japan was poor and had little international exposure, it was the government that created the environment that facilitated movement of Japanese private sector to the US. This helped them acquire management skills, bring in investment and technology. The role of the private sector was also important at that time because they showed zeal to learn and were eager to propagate what they learnt abroad in their own country. I think Nepal should make efforts in this line. What do Japanese investors look at before setting foot in a country? They are political stability and the economic growth rate. Hence, if Nepal wants to get more FDI it must assure its economy is growing at a sound pace. Likewise, it must assure stability of the government as well as policies. Policies that have been put in place should remain there for fairly longer span. Second important factor is supply of skilled laborers, who are not only technically sound but disciplined as well. This workforce should have the capacity to efficiently apply their skills, ensuring higher efficiency and productivity. The third important factor is the level of support extended by the government to the private sector. Efficient bureaucracy - that ensures fair tax administration and clamps down on red tape - is also another factor that investors look at. The final condition is the working condition in a country such as corruption status, policy predictability and availability of basic services. You stayed in Nepal for almost a week and have interacted with top government officials and private sector representatives. What is your reading? Will Japanese investors put in money in the country? My interaction with various personalities gave me a feeling that things are changing for good here. The government is working toward creating an investment friendly environment. The private sector is changing too. In the past, Nepali businesses were run by promoters themselves, and since promoters wanted to maintain control over everything, they resisted change and were rigid. This attitude is changing fast and they are open to change and are more responsive to market shifts. They have also well understood the merits of innovation and are eager for joint ventures. How the Japanese investor will respond, however, will depend on how the Nepali government and private sector build their cases. Many investors here have expressed concerns over rigid labor law. What is your perception on it? If the country is open to foreign investment it should also make similar adjustments in the labor law as well. However, having said so, my belief is laborers, like every other individual, behave depending on what they are getting. The government cannot force them to work if they do not want to. And how to keep them motivated is the duty of investors as well. If businesses can assure they can provide decent working condition, monetary return and other benefits, I am sure workers will not refuse to work. What business areas are Japanese investors interested in? In Nepal, Japanese investors are interested in agriculture, hospitality, infrastructure and hydropower. There are other areas as well that offer good business prospects. Both Nepali government and private sector should inform them about these prospects and work together to actually lure them. Nepal has not received any aid from Japan in the last few years. Why is that? Aid and investment are same these days. Just as the private investor, the government providing aid these days like to see that the assistance provided are being used efficiently and yield desired outcome. In the past, donors used to look at output only, and used to be satisfied if certain number of schools or hospitals were built. These days, they gauge aid effectiveness by ascertaining how many people are actually making use of schools or hospitals. Mere completion of their construction is not enough. Earlier, there were concerns about Nepal not being able to make good use of aid. But given Nepal´s changing situation, the country might start receiving Japanese aid soon. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=34068 Nepal´s national cricket team captain Paras Khadka is all set to play for a Canadian cricket club. He received invitation from Ontario Cricket Club and Academy to play for it for four months. If everything goes well, he will leave Kathmandu before the second week of May. Armed Police Force (APF), the team he plays for, and Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) have already given a clearance to Khadka to play in Canada. [break] Khadka and Shakti Gauchan came into limelight for helping Nepal finish 7th in the ICC World Twenty20 qualifiers. Skipper Khadka had scored a total of 254 runs and taken seven wickets. Gauchan took 16 wickets to finish as the third top wicket taker in the championship. Gauchan was called for trials at the Indian Premier League (IPL) by Rajasthan Royals. Ontario Club contracts players from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka every year. Republica´s Nabin Khatiwada talked to Khadka on Wednesday about the invitation from the Canadian Club. Excerpts: How did this opportunity come your way? It was all possible because of the initiation taken by our coach. It was all through him. After the completion of the ICC World T20 Qualifiers, the coach had asked me whether I would be interested to play in Canada. I said yes, and he contacted Ontario. He has also been trying to find other foreign clubs that would be interested to take in our players. How much do you know about Canadian cricket? Canada is an ODI nation. As far as I know, Canadian Cricket League is the biggest cricket league in all of North America. Clubs there hire cricketers from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It will be a very good exposure for me and I hope to learn many things from Canada. What are the expectations from your side, and what will Ontario Club expect from you? Playing against different opponents and playing on different conditions will off course benefit cricketers. It would help to develop mental toughness. And, I´m excited. Players from Hong Kong and Afghanistan play for different foreign teams and their national team is doing well. If I play in Canada, it will help not just me but also our team. As for their expectation, I will try to perform well and impress them. I want the Canadians to appreciate the caliber of Nepali players. If I can do that, it will open the doors of opportunities for other Nepali players. Have you been informed about the financial aspects of the contract? The invitation from the club itself is an opportunity and I´m less concerned about financial benefits. For Nepali cricketers, exposure is the major concern. The club is bearing all charges related to accommodation and airfare. I am less concerned about other financial benefits. Who else, among the current crop of players, could be called by a foreign club? KHADKA: If we pick the best 20 Nepali cricketers, at least 15 to 16 players are capable of competing at the County level. All my teammates are talented and capable of playing from a foreign club but we lack opportunities. In Nepal we don´t have cricket season in June and July. We play ACC Trophy in October and then the World Cricket League Division 4. Young members of the team will get exposure from the upcoming Asian U-19 Cup and ICC U-19 World Cup. Meanwhile, if senior players of the Nepali team play for the foreign clubs, they will be better prepared to play against international teams. Coach is seeking opportunity for other players as well. Don´t you think what the coach is doing should be done by Cricket Association of Nepal? You need contacts to take such initiatives. Our coach can do it better because he has contacts. Also, coach himself is a part of CAN. The CAN has been supporting both the coach and players in such initiatives. It bore Shakti dai (Gauchan)´s airfare during his visit to India. It has been helpful in preparing my documents for visa process. Nonetheless, it would have been better if CAN had developed its own contacts for such opportunities. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33928 Amar Das Gupta is the president, international operations, of Super Religare Laboratories, one of the top diagnostics centers in India. The company, which is promoted by Fortis Healthcare and Religare Enterprises, among others, has also formed a 50-50 joint venture with Life Care Services of Nepal to operate Super Religare Reference Laboratories in the country for the last two years. In an interview with Republica, Gupta talked about domestic pathology market, quality of pathology laboratories in the country and the company´s future plans. Excerpts: [break] Could you please tell our readers about the company? We are called Super Religare Laboratories and we started our operation in 1996 with the view of filling in the void that existed in terms of carrying out specialized or complex tests. In most countries, most of the labs are operated by pathologists. So the technology these stand-alone labs deploy is not advanced and not adequate to conduct specialized tests. To carry out such tests one can install modern equipment, which requires huge investment. But on the other hand, demand for such tests is usually lower than regular tests. So to offset the loss, most of the pathology centers raise the cost of tests, which creates burden on consumers. One of the ways to lower the cost is pulling samples from various locations to the center where thorough tests can be done. And this is what we are doing in Nepal. Are you trying to say that the general conception that big labs charge big money is a myth? At the end of the day it is the economics which determines the cost of the test. As I said earlier volume is a big determinant of cost. Say for instance, you have a reagent kit which can be used to carry out 100 tests. But if you have collected only 10 samples and are under pressure to provide results of these tests as early as possible, then you will have to sacrifice the revenue that could have been generated from 90 other tests as the kit cannot be used again once it is opened. These kinds of factors raise the cost of tests. So how do you make optimal use of available resources? To create the volume that we need, we have opened collection centers in 16 locations throughout the country. We are soon establishing additional four collection centers in various locations and have plans of taking the number to 30 within couple of months. These collection centers basically collect samples from areas in the vicinity and courier them to the main lab located in Maharajgunj. So at the reference lab in Kathmandu we get samples collected from all over the country. Does this practice of transporting samples to Kathmandu make the tests expensive? We are always concerned about providing services at competitive rates. Since we are relatively new here, businesses in most of the places where we open collection centers are dominated by local players who have carved a niche for themselves. To compete with these players, we cannot afford to overshoot expectations of the medical community or patients in terms of price. But at times people should also take quality into consideration as we take pride in accuracy of our results. Despite establishment of reputed labs like yours, we have to rely on companies based abroad to conduct specialized tests. What are the reasons? The viability of a company depends on the revenue it generates. If we start offering high-end services from day one, without collecting any sample, we will incur huge losses as demand for such tests are usually low while investment is high. Yet we are conducting few specialized tests such as tumor markers and hormone assays which are not carried out by many labs here. In near future we are planning to start performing 20 new tests in the country. What do you think of quality of pathology labs and diagnostic centers in the country? Most of the labs here do not focus on quality control. Quality control is an expensive proposition but without this accuracy of results cannot be guaranteed. Yet doctors as well as patients here do not bother to inquire how tests are being conducted due to lack of awareness. In our case, we ensure that quality, which is of primary importance for patient management, is delivered with each and every result that we issue. In India, you have affiliated your organization with a university to offer biotechnology courses for bachelors, masters and PhD level. Can we expect something like that to happen in Nepal? Certainly. We believe in the technical and medical human power that we have in our organization. These specialists drive different departments of our organization and they have extensive knowledge on various cases and latest technology. We can use these human resources to educate people. Although we have not approached any university in this regard so far, we will do so in near future. This will help our in-house pathologists to enroll for master´s and PhD courses as well. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33868 At the time when the Mohan Baidya led faction of the UCPN (Maoist) has taken to the streets against the decision taken by party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal allowing the Nepal Army to take control of the Maoist combatants, cantonments and arms, Republica´s Kiran Pun caught up with Mohan Baidya, who is also the party´s senior vice chairman, to learn about his next move. Excerpts: Your faction had already expressed reservation over the 7-point deal with Nepali Congress and UML on integration. Since the handover of the cantonments, containers and combatants was made on the basis of the deal what´s the point in your faction staging protests now? The decision allowing the Nepal Army to capture the cantonments is against the decision of the party central committee. The e central committee has decided to take ahead both the integration and constituting drafting process simultaneously. Moreover, party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Prime Minister did not consult us before taking such a decision. But Chairman Dahal has argued that your objection does not have any meaning. He has even alleged that it has become a ritual for your faction to stage protests against all decisions taken by the establishment faction. We have registered our disagreements even in the past. There is no meaning in what others say about our protests. Our posterity and history will evaluate our decision. The Dahal faction has been accusing your faction of inciting combatants to raise various issues including financial transparency in the cantonments. Your faction has also been accused of planning to seize weapons, forcing the government to deploy army in the cantonments. It is a baseless allegation. In fact, we had differences on various issues which have become public now. The allegation is solely aimed at turning intra-party ideological conflict into enmity. What plans do you have for the PLA? Are you planning to reorganize it? PLA comrades opting for voluntary retirement have already formed an organization. We will hold discussions within the party over the fate of retiring PLA personnel.  Key issues related to the ongoing peace process have already been resolved. What do you plan next? The process of integrating PLA combatants is almost over. We had already anticipated this kind of result while expressing reservation over the seven-point deal reached on November 1 last year. Now, the task of constitution drafting remains incomplete. We are closely watching the developments if there will be a pro-people constitution. We´ll see if Chairman Dahal will remain firm in the party´s stance for such a constitution.  Our future course depends on Chairman Dahal´s move in the days ahead. We have watched what he has done so far. We urge him to move ahead in accordance with the party decision. But some leaders from your faction have publicly said that there is no possibility of you moving ahead under Dahal´s leadership. We have been launching separate programs in our own way. But we are still in the same party. We have given continuity to discussions. But, this does not mean that we do not accept Dahal´s leadership. They are saying that you are planning to launch a revolt. Is this true? This is a purely hypothetical and baseless allegation. There is no necessity to raise arms if the issues raised by ordinary people are addressed. But people would automatically raise arms if their issues are not addressed. We will not have to raise arms under such a situation. We have never said we are going to raise arms.  http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33823 The progress in integration seems to have given a new impetus to the constitution agenda. Now that the peace process has entered an irreversible point, attention is likely to shift to settlement of vital constitution-related issues, state restructuring the most important among them. In particular, issues on federalism being raised by the Janajati caucus comprising of CA members have emerged as a big challenge for the major political parties. Thira L Bhusal and Biswas Baral caught up with Nepali Congress leader and member of CA’s Committee for Restructuring of the State and Distribution of State Powers Narahari Acharya on contentious state restructuring issues and the ways to resolve them. What is the latest Nepali Congress stand on federalism? Nepali Congress believes federal states should be decided on the basis of identity and capability. There are five basis of identity and four basis of capability. Identity is not just ethnic identity. The Constituent Assembly’s Committee for Restructuring of the State and Distribution of State Powers also said as much. Even the majority decision of the State Restructuring Commission accepts that identity and capability are two interlinked issues and they cannot be viewed in isolation. What is the party’s stand on number of federal states? On this the party’s official position is in line with the policy and programs passed by the party General Convention.  According to it, we might have six states, seven maximum. But we are ready to be flexible on this. The number can be cut down to five or it might go up to seven. Nepali Congress President Sushil Koirala had recently said that all federal states should be demarcated along north-south axis. How feasible is this? I don’t know in what context he said this. Whenever I have discussed the issue with him, he has said that we should find a way out of this problem by granting states enough access. In the case of Nepal, this access mainly refers to India. Thus it might not be feasible for all the states to touch both the countries.  But it has to be kept in mind that while designing federal states no state is barred enough access, both within the country and without. Even in the US, there is a provision that each federal state should either border the sea or should be connected to four other states. Other countries too, to the extent feasible, draw boundaries such that each state has enough access to vital resources. We should consider what regional geography and the nature of settlements demand. In the past the demand for One Madesh had been singled out as the biggest hurdle to viable state restructuring. Right now, the demands of the Janajati caucus seems to have emerged as a bigger challenge. How do you see this development in light of the limited time left for constitution drafting? I believe the way UCPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML presented themselves in an irresponsible manner in the CA’s state restructuring committee has resulted in these complications. I don’t think they took the issue seriously from the start. This has now resulted in a situation where the parties have been forced to reconsider their earlier stands on restructuring. Those who were for 14 provinces are now divided between six- and 10-state models. The political parties, I believe, didn’t deal with this issue as seriously as they should have, nor were the complexities associated with it properly apprehended.  The Maoists were the most irresponsible in this regard. Even while they were the biggest party in the CA and were also at the head of the CA’s state restructuring body, their leaders were openly declaring their own models. Even for the benefit of the Janajatis, I doubt if the proposals now being forwarded will meet their long-term aspirations. There are two factors in this: one is the issue of positions and interests, while the other concerns the issue of necessity. There is no doubt the necessity of ethnic communities must be addressed. On the interests of political parties or other groups, compromises will have to be worked out. The old positions should be revisited. The political parties seem to have realized that if the restructuring process is complicated too much, the whole project might be doomed. Thus those in favor of federalism have to carefully weigh their options. They should keep in mind that unnecessarily complicating the restructuring agenda could play into the hands of non-federalists. You say the official NC stand is on six provinces. But the Janajati CA members, even those belonging to NC, have been adamant on the 14-state model. Even now, different people are adopting different positions. This issue cannot move ahead without revisiting those positions. No one seems to have thought about the issue from a new angle. Federalism should not be limited to protests and positions; even more important is the deliberation on how viable a model is. I believe the party (NC) should be able to convince its lawmakers in this matter. The party leadership must be able to explain why they are adopting certain model. I believe time has also come for the three major parties to take responsibility for the agenda. No one can get away by blaming others for lack of progress. Without this understanding, there can be no federalism. But why have parties been unable to convince their own lawmakers? First, there should be understating at the leadership level, only then can interactions with lawmakers be meaningful. The current problems owes to hardening of positions. Once the parties realize that a spirit of compromise is sine qua non for a viable federal agenda, the issues that will establish identities at the federal level can be worked out. In no official document, neither in the CA committee’s report nor in the SRC report, has it been mentioned that governance will be based on ethnicity. Thus, first, party leaderships have to understand the issues. Otherwise how can they convince party rank and file? But if the leadership of three parties see eye to eye on federalism, I believe they can make others understand the underlying issues. There is very limited time for constitution drafting. Do you believe the remaining time is enough to work out a viable federal model? If there is an understanding that there is no point in bringing out a constitution by leaving aside this all-important issue, we can still work out something in the remaining time. But development of federalism takes time. India, which started out as a semi-federal state is now developing as a full-fledged federal state. This kind of arrangement can be made here too. It is not necessary that everything be worked out right now. I believe that if the minimal number of states is agreed upon, that will also help the implementation of the concept of local autonomous regions.  If an autonomous region, in course of time, develops necessary infrastructure and meets other requirements, it can itself emerge as a federal state. What agreements on federalism can be worked out before May 27? Right now the political parties haven’t formally entered negotiations on this issue. But unofficial negotiations have moved ahead at a brisk pace. Thus while it might seem that all the attention of the major parties is going to the issue of integration, there have been meaningful discussion on federalism as well. The number of states, rough borders, even names can be worked out. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33824 The progress in integration seems to have given a new impetus to the constitution agenda. Now that the peace process has entered an irreversible point, attention is likely to shift to settlement of vital constitution-related issues, state restructuring the most important among them. In particular, issues on federalism being raised by the Janajati caucus comprising of CA members have emerged as a big challenge for the major political parties. Thira L Bhusal and Biswas Baral caught up with CPN-UML Politburo member and the coordinator of the Janajati caucus Prithvi Subba Gurung on contentious state restructuring issues and the ways to resolve them. As we near the constitution deadline the issue of federalism has gained in prominence. As the coordinator of the Janajati caucus in the Constituent Assembly how do you view this debate? The issue of state restructuring has not entered a substantial phase yet. So far as the Janajati caucus is concerned, it has been trying to make the major party leadership understand our issues. We had promulgated a concept paper outlining our points of support and differences for the report produced by the CA’s state restructuring committee. Since we have interacted with all major and minor parties, they more or less know our issues. But these dialogues have not been very fruitful in terms of outcomes. What are your major concerns that party leaderships have not been able to address? None of the three main parties seems to have taken our demands seriously. For instance, the question of proper resolution of the question of the right to self-determination and autonomy has not even been seriously broached yet. I believe we provided an opportunity for the party leadership to enter meaningful debates on these issues. But I don’t think they have realized the gravity of the matter. The major parties seem to want to resolve the issue of state restructuring through dialogue between top leaders.  Will this be acceptable to the Janajati caucus? No major party in Nepal is committed to the agenda of federalism. Not even the Maoists have been come up with a consistent policy recommendation on the issue. Federalism was never an agenda of NC and UML, especially identity-based federalism. All major decisions on federalism have been arrived at through constant prodding of janajatis and other indigenous groups as well as by the pressure exerted by the Madhesh Andolan.  Since federalism is only the demand of the Madhesis and janajatis, the major parties have not shown much concern in this regard. The leadership of major parties must have thought that since they are custodians of Nepali politics, anything they decide would be acceptable to all.  But if the nitty-gritty of federalism is settled behind closed doors, that would be an unfortunate situation. I request the political leadership to address issues through consultations with relevant stakeholders. Only then will the constitution be a legitimate document. What will be the move of the Janajati lawmakers if political parties decide to issue whips on important issues in CA? Issuing whips will not be easy. That might create an environment of revolt. We have been saying that since the lawmakers are not just representatives of political parties but equally of their community and class, they should be as loyal to the party as they should be towards their communities. I don’t think the political parties will go so far as to completely overlook the possibility of lawmakers crossing party lines. As a leader of CPN-UML, how do you evaluate the party’s proposed federal model? I believe CPN-UML still has the most coherent view on federalism.  The 15-state model that was initially settled on by the party’s working committee on federalism was the best model. Now, the situation is that the party has neither been able to stick to the old model nor propose a new one in its stead. The leadership of Nepali Congress and even a section within the UML is now pitching for the six to seven state models with north-south demarcation. How do you view this proposal? Look, NC has never been serious about the federalism agenda. In UML, I believe it was Madhak Kumar Nepal who first spoke on the possibility of provinces bordering both the big neighbors. I believe that there is a big conspiracy in the proposal that all states should incorporate mountains, hills and plains. There is also conspiracy in the proposal that there should only be six-seven states as 14-15 states are unviable. These are conspiracies hatched by those who cannot openly say that federalism should not be based on identity. Some leaders are now saying that each state should border India. Others are saying, why just India, each state should also border China. At the heart of the federal agenda is honoring the suppressed linguistic, cultural and ethnic aspirations. It is not being done so that each state borders this or that country. There are rumors that Janajati lawmakers are contemplating forming a different party. Is there a degree of truth in it? The Janajati caucus has never thought about establishing a separate party. But regional parties are already forming in the proposed Limbuwan, Khumbuwan and other regions. This should be a lesson for the major parties. The lawmakers should not be forced to choose between their party and ethnic affiliations.  How do you address the question of capability? The main reason we are adopting a federal setup is to prevent a social conflict. Thus identity is the main issue. The main issue related to capability is that the provincial government or local government should be accessible to the people. The other capability-related issue is that Nepal is a country replete with natural resources. There must justifiable distribution of these resources. We also have to consider economic and social aspects. But what is happening now is that the question of capability is being linked to the issue of taxation and revenues. This is an attempt to divert attention from the identity issues. Can you enumerate the major demands of the Janajati caucus at this point in time? First, the country should adopt a federal set up that adequately addresses the issue of identity. Second, we believe that if the number of states is comparatively higher, it will be able to address the diversity issue. Economist Vijaya Sharma believes 15 states is the most viable option for Nepal. If we look at examples around the world, 90 percent of the countries with two states have disintegrated. When a country has 3-7 states, the country is unsuccessful in 72 percent of cases. The higher you go, the more the stability.  This is because if there is a large number of states, they will not be able to challenge the center politically, economically and in terms of population.  Third, while demarcating borders, linguistic, cultural and ethnic clusters should not be broken apart. Fourth, the provinces should adopt a multilingual policy for the promotion of local languages. Fifth, while the center should be strong, we believe only a model that fosters coexistence between the regional and central governments will succeed. Thus states should be adequately empowered. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33656 B Muthuraman is the president of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and vice chairman of Tata Steel Limited. An IIT graduate and masters degree holder in business administration, Muthuraman is also chairman of Tata International Limited. He is currently in Nepal to attend the 46th annual general meeting of the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) and is also leading CII´s CEOs mission to Nepal. In an interview with Republica, Muthuraman said more Indian investment will flow into Nepal only if there is improvement in political climate. Excerpts:[break] The CII has been a partner of the FNCCI since 1994. How has the journey been? The journey has been exceedingly good. We must understand India and Nepal are natural business and trading partners. We share common boundary, we have somewhat similar language, we have similar culture. So there are many things that are common between peoples of Nepal and India. Keeping these things in mind, the FNCCI and the CII started developing relations in mid-1990s and it is getting stronger every year. If you recall, in the middle of last year we formed a joint economic council which is co-chaired by one representative each from the FNCCI and the CII. This council has so far held two rounds of meetings, which discussed an array of issues ranging from trade to investment. You are currently leading CCI´s CEO mission to Nepal. What were the outcomes? If you see the history of Nepal, it has experimented with democratic system to monarchy and so on. But good things will happen only if you have a well functioning democracy. We have seen this happen throughout the world, including India. Although democratic systems are prone to delays, the system tries to incorporate voice of everyone, which yields better solutions. I´m told sometime in May everything will be decided, and Nepal will have a proper constitution and fully functioning democratic system in place. This visit has boosted my confidence in Nepal. And I am quite sure things will turn better here. Are you trying to say political stability is the precondition to bring in more Indian investment to Nepal? It´s not the question of Nepal. Political roadblocks anywhere in the world creates economic problems. If all the political parties agree to put economy in the top priority then economic growth will certainly take place. Did any member of your delegation make specific commitment on bringing in investment to Nepal? During this trip we met the president, prime minister and industry minister. And all of them are in favor of further strengthening business relationship and attracting more Indian investment into Nepal. They also said they will find a resolution to the current political stalemate. And if that happens it will be very good for the future of Nepal. Coming back to the question again, were any commitments made on investment? Indian investors are already here in Nepal and are providing jobs to some 30,000 people. More Indian investors are willing to invest in Nepal but they want to see improvement in political environment. So commitments will come only when there is relative political stability in place. Besides the government should also ensure there is stability of policies, industrial peace and drop in industrial strikes. I hope these things will happen once there is full-fledged democratic system in place. When you talk to your friends in CII and Indian investors in Nepal what were identified as biggest challenges in terms of working in Nepal? Apart from what I mentioned earlier they want better infrastructure to be built, uninterrupted power supply and flexibility in the labor market. If these problems are solved Nepal is an excellent place to make investment. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33081 Maoist Standing Committee member Netra Bikram Chand is the right-hand man of Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya. He talked to Republica´s Kiran Pun on the ongoing tussle within the party. Excerpts: [break] How do you view the separate gathering of the central committee (CC) members from the party establishment? It can be viewed from two different angles. First, there is nothing wrong in holding such a meeting; we have the official policy to let the dissenting groups hold such meetings. But the flip side is that they have decided to call another CC meeting without implementing the decisions of the last CC meeting. It will be meaningless. Besides, any one faction alone doesn´t have the right to call a CC meeting; there must be consensus among all the factions. So the recent CC meeting has violated the party´s norms and principles. The meeting has decided that the party stands no chance to stay united without your faction [led by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya] switching over to the line of peace and constitution. What is your response? The terms ´peace´ and ´constitution´ are being used with malafide intent to damage our reputation. We have construed it as an attempt to force the lower class people to wage a war. What is “peace and constitution”, anyway? Who said we are against peace and constitution? We are concerned about the contents of the constitution and lasting peace. Peace and constitution should not serve the interests of the upper class alone. And we have justly raised the issues as per the party´s decisions. It is unfortunate that the party establishment is blaming us the way the NC and UML are blaming the chairman (Pushpa Kamal Dahal) and our whole party. So, will you not participate in the forthcoming CC meeting? As per the party statute, party general secretary (Ram Bahadur Thapa) alone has the authority to call a CC meeting. No particular faction has the right to do so. The decision of a faction to call a CC meeting is not valid. Chairman Dahal reportedly told the CC members close to him that the line your faction has been floating will be appropriate only if you go back to war. What do you say? It is strange that he said such a thing. I think it is meaningless and only a subjective interpretation of what we have been saying. Other parties have also been saying such things and we are used to hearing such things. We are only demanding the implementation of decisions taken by the last CC meeting. Your faction claims that Dahal has been cheating you time and again. But why do you trust him time and again? It is unfortunate that our understanding with him has not been implemented this time as well. We want the decisions to be implemented and we are pressing him for that. Will the party remain united in future? It will depend on how the intra-party discussions move ahead. Things will fall in line if the party decisions are implemented. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33071 Jayesh Cholera is the new general manager of The Everest Hotel. Cholera with 28 years of work experience in hotel industry, had been associated with Country Inn & Suites, Sarvor Hotels and Resorts and others in India. Samiksha Koirala of Republica caught up with Cholera to talk about his plans during his tenure. [break] Would you like to share your plans as the new General Manager of this hotel? In terms of our services my aim is to bring glory of what it used to be as the Everest Sheraton. We need to put all our services together to make the Everest Hotel the top hotel of the country. Along with my team I will be working to achieve this goal. I think its too early for me to comment on my other plans. Do you have plans of expansion?   As the business is just growing, my target is to first fill the occupancy as we are still slightly low. We can start planning about the expansion only after a year. How do you evaluate the growth of tourist arrivals of the country? Considering the arrivals, there has been a huge jump and Nepal has always been a favorite destination for all from back packers to luxury segment. Travel agents are expecting a growth of 30 percent, which I think is realitic. I am hopeful the arrivals rate will grow further. Have you felt any hindrances that you think are stopping the growth of hospitality industry of Nepal? Power crisis is the major problem because of which the operating cost is higher. Higher operating cost means the tariff will go up and we will be shying away from lot of tourist. Power issue has to be resolved quickly as it is minium requirement for the better operation of any business or hospitality industry. Hotel Association Nepal (HAN) is preparing to set minimum benchmark for room tariff depending on the category of the hotel. Do you think it is a good idea as our tariff is low compared to hotels of India? In my opinion, it should be an open market rather than fixing the tariff. When we set benchmark what happens is it will be more on paper than in the practice. I agree rate is slightly lower but it doesn´t mean we should be aggressively increasing the tariff. I don´t see much of competition as no new star hotels are coming into operation soon but the number of arrivals is going up. So, its time to increase our tariff slowly. Do you think focusing on high-end tourist can help to increase Average-Room-Rate ? When we say ´high-end tourist´ they don´t operate round the year as they come during the peak tourist season only. Opening doors to all the segment means having business all around the year. Do you have any plan to focus on particular market? We set target on the basis of tourist movements. At present, China offers a huge prospect, and being closer we can offer cheaper package to bring more Chinese tourists. At the same time, I would love to have tourists from Europe and America as well. Religious and medical tourism is growing tremendously in India and we can also start focusing on these sectors. Large number of tourists can be brought by developing such packages. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32924 The government back in November nominated Maoist Politburo member Ram Karki as the new Nepali ambassador to India. But the likely host is yet to send an agreemo on Karki’s name. Karki is known to be close to Baburam Bhattarai. But in recent times the relationship between them has reportedly soured. In this context, Post B Basnet talked to Karki about the reasons behind the delay in the sending of his agreemo, his relationship with PM Bhattarai and the ideological divides within the Maoist party. [break] What do you make of India’s delay in sending of your agreemo? You´d better pose this question to the government. Frankly, I am a politician and have never aspired to become an ambassador. It was the prime minister (Baburam Bhattarai) who asked me to become the ambassador to India that has been exerting so much influence in our country for so long. We are in a crucial phase of political transition, and it is very important to earn the goodwill of that country. And that’s the reason why I accepted the proposal. I am not a career diplomat. I only honored the request of the government. So you will get better answer if you ask this question to the prime minister. Why was I not appointed a minister like others? Have you not asked the prime minister why India did not send the agrimo? No, I have not. Why should I? It is his problem. As the parliament of Nepal had endorsed me as the Nepali envoy, India should have recognized it. The media should have raised the issue, and asked why an ambassador-designate of a sovereign country was not recognized, but they did not. There are reports that India did not accept you as you are the supporter of the Gorkhaland movement and Maoist insurgency in India. Some even cited your wife´s job with the Indian public service as a factor. I don´t know why such things are being written in newspapers. None of these arguments is valid. If establishing matrimonial relations with someone from India could deprive people of ambassadorship or some other important appointment, people of Tarai would think twice before marrying an Indian woman. So far as my support for the Gorkhaland movement is concerned, the Indian government has recognized the validity of the movement and struck a deal with its proponents. The so-called communist government of West Bengal desperately tried to paint it as a separatist movement but that could not stand very long. I am a Nepali language speaker and it is natural for me and my party to sympathize with the movement. Moreover, I am a communist. You don’t have the moral right to call yourself a communist if you don’t support the movements for justice around the world. Similarly, it is an open secret that there was a fraternal relation between the Maoists of India and Nepal. Since I have been working for the party’s foreign affairs department for so long, it is natural for me to establish relations with Indian Maoists. But it was only party-to-party relations. So it is wrong to say that they rejected me as an ambassador for marrying an Indian or sympathizing with the movement of Nepali speakers in India. The prime ministers of the two countries should know the real reason. Then what´s the reason? Why should I ask anyone? They had long been saying that India will send the agreemo. India is a giant country, physically and geographically. Nepal has never questioned about the Indians who are nominated ambassadors to Nepal. Both politicians and bureaucrats have become envoys here. There is a recent report (on how India views Nepal) prepared by Indian strategists and those close to Indian establishment. It clearly states the impressions of smaller neighbors of India, and makes recommendations to rectify the country´s shortcomings. Reports say you were also rejected as an ambassador to France and India previously. Is it true? A statement of the then French ambassador clearly said that France had sent its agreemo and that it was ready to welcome me as an ambassador. As for India, I don’t know if the Nepali prime minister held any formal-informal talks with anyone about nominating me. One of the factions in your party to which you belong has been labeled pro-Indian. Do you regard yourself as pro-Indian, especially in wake of India´s failure to recognize you as an envoy? I am a proud Nepali. But this doesn’t mean that I am anti-India. I am still a pro-Indian. In fact there are two Indias. One is of the Indian people who have sacrificed and struggled for the betterment of mankind, and raise their voices for Nepal and other poor countries. It’s that India that I support. Is it true that your relation with PM Bhattarai has soured? Usually we politicians have political relations with each other. We can also develop emotional relations over time. I have only supported him conditionally. During the insurgency, I felt that there had been great injustice against him and those who shared his views, which was the reason I supported him. Otherwise there is no reason for Bhattarai to feel any obligation towards me. Nor do I seek any return for my support. During the Kharipati meeting, we supported Mohan Baidya, but that was also with some conditions. We were at loggerheads over the theoretical and political line with him, but we shared the same organizational line. Circumstances will decide which line will prevail. But we should currently prioritize the party´s organizational line that has virtually collapsed. Baidya could also not uphold this cause for long and had to compromise. So we backed Bhattarai again. I believe it is not the time for an armed struggle, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t need any struggle. Both Chairman Dahal and Bhattarai talk about peace and constitution, but there is no political program to implement it. Similarly, there is no organizational, military, and economic line to back the theoretical and political line. It is said that the dissolution of the military formed by the Maoists will lead to peace in the country. Integration and rehabilitation is only a part of the peace process. Reviving the constitution of the 1990, as one Nepali Congress (NC) leader has suggested, and setting aside the issue of state restructuring will not lead to lasting peace. It will be like riding a fantasy horse. The prevailing situation of anarchy might give birth to a dictator. Under such circumstances there is no meaning of being loyal to anyone. A communist party should always be a cadre-based party loyal to the masses. Knowingly or unknowingly, attempts are afoot to transform the party into a mass-based party. Its revolutionary spirit is being killed. How do you evaluate the performance of Bhattarai government? Baburamji has already stated that posterity will evaluate his performance (laughing). But Nepali people don’t have that patience. They will evaluate his performance based on immediate results. The state was weakened in the past due to People´s War at the grassroots level and contradictions within the ruling class above. NC and UML want to tinker the state apparatus by giving space to the Maoists within the system, without restructuring the state. That’s the reason why the NC doesn’t want to lead the government. But that will not work. How do you think the leadership will deal with the intra-party feud? In the past, party unity was kept intact by the principle of centralism minus democracy. The consequence is that there is democracy now, but no centralism. All the leaders are responsible for that. How do you evaluate the roles of Dahal, Baidya and Bhattarai in current political scenario? It’s said that there are only two lines in the party, one led by Baidya and the other by Bhattarai. But that´s only partially right. None of the lines is updated. Otherwise it would not have been possible for the chairman to be the center of attention when he joined hands with Baidya and now that he appears to have switched over to Bhattarai’s camp he is in the limelight again. There are leadership qualities in the chairman. Bhattarai correctly assesses the politics of the day, but he doesn’t have the right mechanism to implement his vision. He tried to float his vision from the party organization created by the chairman and Baidya. This is also the reason behind his current success or failure, whatever you might prefer to call it. Baidya is committed to revolutionary theory, but he lacks political programs to achieve the goal, while the chairman has become too pragmatist at the cost of ideology and theory. Those who are still clean and those who are not tainted with corruption and dubious contract deals should join forces to launch an intra-party campaign for party purification, ideological clarity and to set into motion new political programs. The face of communism has been disfigured and we don’t know what legacy we will leave behind. I fear the concept of communism will be construed as dubious contract dealings or extortions. Then what will happen if the party doesn’t change track? As we have seen in other countries, it will split into numerous factions. There are talks that there will be only three parties. I don’t think it will split into only three parties. I have always demanded party general convention and financial transparency, but no one is serious about it. We should have immediately held a general convention, and began an accounting system to maintain financial transparency. Now see the luxury buildings of Maoist leaders, all in the name of security and welcoming Nepali and foreign guests! After the success of Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin stayed at a residence that expanded over 26 square meter, while his wife Nadezhda bought ordinary meal from the nearby cafeteria. But see the situation in Nepal. What happened to the communist leaders? How do you assess India´s role in Nepal´s peace process? It will be against the interests of our neighbors if Nepal turns into another Afghanistan or the Balkans. So the big neighbor should obviously prefer peace and stability. But it is not happening. Just see the recent report about India´s relations with the neighbors prepared. In India the political parties are being discredited while the bureaucracy, which was trained by the British for centuries, is increasingly becoming powerful. It is not a good sign for Nepal. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32816 Nepal’s football coach Graham Roberts is returning to England 13 months after taking up the job, which ended with three successive defeats at the ongoing AFC Challenge Cup finals in Nepal. Roberts is believed to have had mixed success managing the Nepali national team, the highlight of his stint being the country’s progress to the second round of World Cup qualifiers in 2011. The ex-England international and Tottehman captain is rumored to have quit after differences with members of the football governing body, the All Nepal Football Association (ANFA). Prajwal Oli and Biswas Baral caught up with Roberts to discuss his tenure as Nepal’s coach, the state of Nepali football and the reports of his differences with ANFA officials. [break] You have been in Nepal for last 13 months. How has your experience here been? I have enjoyed my stay, particularly the football part of it. I think I have improved the boys. I think they have gone up a notch during my time here. They have gone from the bottom of the rankings to the top team in South Asia. When I first came the boys were very lazy. They had an attitude problem. I got them to work hard. Roberts with ANFA president Ganesh Thapa. When you arrived in Nepal, how did you find the level of professionalism in Nepali football? There was no professionalism. It was all amateur football. It´s not changed much. To be a professional you have to play around 10 months a year. But you have a national league that ran for 24 days the last time. It’s impossible to improve in this condition. You have to have a structure where each team plays the other twice, maybe even thrice. You have just a couple of good pitches in Nepal. So you will have to improve upon this situation. You should have at least 3-4 stadiums. That will also help space out the games and you will get a better quality of players. How do you rate the quality of Nepal football in South Asia? I think you are better than all the teams in South Asia now. India, during the AFC Cup, was not half the team it was in the SAFF championship (in 2011). I believe we would have beaten them here. But again, we lost to the Maldives. You may ask: How can you say that? Well, I think our boys have improved. We created a lot of chances in recent games. Our problem was lack of strikers. But that is not just a problem for Nepal, but for all South Asian countries. The Maldives have effectively one striker, India have just two. They will struggle against powerful teams. Why do you think there are such few good strikers in the region? Look, you have got to have natural talent to be a striker. You cannot make a striker. You have either got that instinct or you don’t. I was talking to the Turkmenistan coach the other day and he told me that Nepali strikers pass it back whenever they get the ball. Why? It’s the question of mentality. They receive the ball and they go backwards! If you look at North Korea or the Philippines, their strikers go forward soon as they receive the ball. Our strikers, first touch, they go backwards. You can tell them, you can coach them, but at the end of the day it’s instinctive. We tried to make them go forward in training. One day they did it, but it’s the same old story the next day. What can we do to improve the situation? I don’t know. Look at (India’s striker) Sunil Chhetri’s movements. The moment he gets the ball, he wants to go forward towards the goal. But here, the mentality is that I got to control the ball and go backwards. I don’t know how you change this. There could be a Nepali boy in England or somewhere else playing football who might have that instinct. You got to scout for them. That’s what the Philippines have done. They have brought together players in America, in England, in Norway. There are four players playing at the highest level. Two lads (the Younghusband brothers) play for Chelsea. They have come through Chelsea’s academy, played for its reserve team and gone to Norway, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. They instinctively go forward when they receive the ball. You can’t replicate something that you don’t have in your mind first. You have good players but their instinct is to go back. Anil (Gurung) had a good chance the other day against Turkmenistan and he passed it to Santosh (Sahukhala). It’s a question of confidence, maybe. In the league you are playing, the bottom six or seven teams are a waste of time. How many times do we play at these games with the pace we do on the international arena? Never. I have watched some of the national league matches and I might well have been watching the paint dry. It was that slow. Besides the shortage of strikers, what do you think went wrong during the ongoing AFC tournament? Well, the bottom line is that we didn’t score goals. We created enough chances. Jumanu (Rai) had two good chances in the first game against Palestine. He hit the post. It could easily have gone in. Then, it would be 1-1, a different game. In another instance, our goalkeeper lost his concentration and fumbled with the ball before it ended up in the back of the net. The Palestine players got a chance, they put it in. Our players, given similar chances, hit it wide. The boys disappointed the whole country. They could have played better. But in life you only get what you put into it. There seem to have been some problems on the pitch. What were the problems off it that hampered Nepal’s chances? Yes, there were some problems. But that happens everywhere, even in England. But did you get the needed support, both in terms of equipment and manpower, from ANFA? I did. I certainly wanted more players. But I was told three-four weeks before that I had 20 players available. If there were more, I would have had a bigger squad to choose from. I kept fighting, fighting, fighting for 23 players, but I had to make do with 20. You can only fight so much. At the end of the day, they make the decisions and you do your best with the available resources. Even of the 20 players, only 15-16 have what it takes to play at the top level. I tried to make a substitution during the second game (against the Maldives), but somebody told me—I am not going to take names—“no, no, no, this is his first game, he cannot play”. But if you don’t play, how can you get experience? Were these events the reason you quit the job of the national coach? Let me make this clear, I didn’t quit. Before the Turkmenistan game, I said in the press conference that today is my last game. Everything was settled amicably. I never resigned. It was settled before the Turkmenistan game. In Nepal, politics has seeped into all sectors. Did you also feel it interfered with your job as Nepal’s coach? At certain times. But I am strong-willed. I stick to my guns. I don’t think the Nepali boys stick to their guns. Yes, politics is a problem, but that’s true of every aspect of our life. But comparatively, yes. In England for instance the chairman will have a meeting with the manager, but the chairman doesn’t pick the team. The coach is the man to deal with everything on-pitch. There was a photo of you supposedly arguing with the team manager Krishna Bhakta Manandhar during the second match against the Maldives… I wasn’t arguing with him. I told him to change one player. He came back and asked, “Do you want to wait a minute?” I said I wanted it done right then. It was nothing about me telling him off or anything. Nothing to do with the assistant coach. There were also rumors that ANFA president Ganesh Thapa had directly intervened during the Maldives game. Apparently, it was under his orders that Santosh Sahukhala was brought in as the substitute, which was against your wishes. There is a problem with Nepali boys. They take phones with them to the dressing room. I said no phones. When we leave the hotel, the phones go off until we come back after the match. On Monday (before the Tajikistan clash), I shouted at the players who were busy ringing their wives and girlfriends. About whether the ANFA president interfered with my job, no, he never did. I am strong-willed. Nobody will ever tells me whom to pick. None of the South Asian teams (Nepal, India and the Maldives) could make it to the AFC semi-finals. Do you believe the quality of South Asian football is inferior to say, the quality of football in Central or South East Asia? I think so. I was talking to the Tajikistan coach the other day and he said his players were playing the second Bundesliga, the second division football in Germany, which is better than anything in this part of the world. Yes, you have foreign players come to Nepal, but you tell me, how many of these players have played internationally? You had, I guess, three Africans playing in the national league, but not one of them had played at the international stage. They were pathetic. Why give them the contract? You aren’t going to improve standards unless you bring in players who are better than the local players. I can have the top team here (Nepal Police) play against a team of amateur players from England and the Nepali side will still be beaten, easily. Will sending our players to play or train abroad improve things? It could. Look at India which is now playing teams from the English Premier League. I watched that game and some players of the Indian squad were really good. You might go to places like Norway and Malta which have all professional leagues. The standard there is very-very good. You can’t ask me to take players to England because they won’t get work visas. We tried to get Rohit (Chand) to go to the Rangers (in Scotland), but that didn’t work out. You can at least take players to the countries like Romania and Malta where you are more likely to get visas. Another thing you could do is restructure your league to span six to eight months. That will help improve quality as well. If the players are playing continuously for a month, as happens here, they get burned out and are liable to picking up injuries. The ANFA president has hinted that we might not have seen the last of you. Will you continue to be involved with Nepali football in some way? We will see. I am going home right now. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow. But there is a possibility (that I might come back). I am not someone who shut’s the door on somebody. The president was saying the other day that Nepal was trying to host the 2013 SAFF championship. I said I will come back and watch if I am not involved with another team. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32591 Maoist politburo member Khadga Bahadur Bishwakarma is a key player in the party faction led by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya. He is the highest ranking Maoist leader to represent Dalit community in the Maoist party. Bishwakarma talked to Republica´s Post B Basnet Wednesday afternoon. Excerpts:[break] Party leaders don´t talk much about intra-party factionalism these days. What´s going on in the party now? We formulated new policies and mechanisms to run the party during the last central committee (CC) meeting in mid-January. We could maintain party unity to some extent, and inject a new life into it thereby raising new hope among the people. We formulated a month-long political program for mass mobilization. We are currently discussing second phase programs. But it´s true that there seems to have emerged a tendency to deviate from the spirit of the agreement of the last CC meeting and the basis on which we are united. We are also making a last-ditch attempt to form a national consensus government. The issues of the peace and constitution drafting have been sidelined for such a government. We feel that the party leadership has not also taken this initiative whole-heartedly. Why not form a national government after the conclusion of the PLA integration process? There are two sides of the peace process: constitution drafting and the PLA integration. The tendency to seek solutions by separating these two issues to fulfill vested interests of some sections is an impediment to the peace process. These two issues are interrelated and must be addressed simultaneously. The expansionists, imperialists and their local stooges plan to separate the arms form the PLA, and after dissolving it they want to formulate a constitution in their favor and manipulate the next general elections to defeat the Maoists. Your party was on the verge of a split as various factions wanted to treat the peace process differently. What was the basis of party unity during the last CC meeting? We formulated a common stance during the last CC meeting. That was to integrate the PLA into the Nepal Army (NA) directorate in a dignified manner. That means group integration of the PLA and its leadership in the directorate. Similarly we wanted to formulate a constitution of people´s federal democratic republic that grants political freedom to oppressed groups. We also agreed that the party leadership committed mistakes by signing the four-point and seven point deals, BIPPA, and by returning the seized land. There was consensus to review them and bring the party into the right track. There was already a decision not to take any political move without consensus and no one has the right to break the party decision. You say that the party chairman has frequently breached the party decisions in the past. Why do you still trust him? There are two things. First whether the party leadership is for formulating an appropriate program and policy and second, whether the leadership is ready to implement them. The way the party moved ahead in the month following the last CC meeting was fine. But there have been some confusion and anomaly in the last one month. We are yet to see whether the leadership implements the party decisions. Many political observers say you are only issuing empty threat to split the party. You can neither go back to war nor launch an urban revolt. The Maoist party was born to change the current socio-political structure. The dissolution of the party is inevitable if it cannot enforce sweeping changes in the country. The party cannot quit its agenda and betray the country and the people. To join the peace process does not meant we quit our revolutionary goals and neglect the people´s concerns. We can institutionalize the desirable changes by integrating the PLA into the NA in dignified manner and formulating the constitution of a people´s federal democratic republic. If this doesn´t happen, we will appeal to people and create a hurricane of mass movement. The next program of the party will be to increase the role of the people against conspiracy to disrupt the peace process, and the whole party machinery from the top to bottom will take initiative for that. You are also advocating autonomous Karnali region. Why do you need autonomy? Karnali has been marginalized and neglected for so long and we want full autonomy for the region in the new political set up. The region is doubly marginalized - politically and regionally. The people of Karnali need autonomy. Former King Mahendra divided the region for administrative purposes. We are not talking about Karnali zone, but Karnali region that includes five districts of Karnali and three districts of Bheri. There is also the demand for autonomy for ethnic Jadan region and we are ready to address it. You also represent Dalit community in your party. How are you fighting for the rights of your community? Dalits should get proportional representations in all state organs . There are three schools of thought in the dalits rights movement. First there is a "bourgeois slogan" that is for reservations for dalits, which means the state will show sympathy and kindness to dalits. Second there is a "communist revisionist midset" that is for "progressive reservations". But there is no fundamental difference between the two. The revolutionary school demands "special rights" for dalit, and thats exactly what we want. The way the non-territorial federalism has been floated is a conspiracy against the dalit movement, and it must be resisted by dalits from across the country. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32525 Agilent Technologies is a US-based company that offers wide range of measurement solutions. The three business units of the company include chemical analysis, life sciences and electronic measurement. Agilent Technologies was the main sponsor of the Nepal Pharma Expo 2012 organized recently in Kathmandu. Kriti Bhuju of Republica caught up with Mohd Ishak Abu, channel sales account manager of Agilent Technologies, to talk about the company and its presence in Nepal. Excerpts:[break] Could you please tell something about Agilent Technologies? Agilent Technologies mainly works in three sectors: life science, chemical analysis and electronic measurement. Electronic measurement is a different wing that manufactures testing devices that test manufacturing defects in mobile phones, television and other electronics. Agilent is the premium measurement company that provides broad range of measuring equipment to pharma industries around the globe. Besides, we focus on food safety as well. According to data of 2011, the company is worth $6.6 billion and has 18,700 employees around the world. How do you see Nepal´s market potential? Nepal is an emerging market in the global pharmaceutical sector with a very high growth potential. The industries here have wide knowledge of latest innovations around the globe. When did Agilent enter into Nepali market and what was the main objective behind it? It´s been two years. We are here to introduce latest innovations in the measurement world and to provide industries with wider choice. What about prices of equipment? We offer products at competitive prices. Our products are different than that of other companies, as we manufacture world class equipment and focus more on quality control, and research and development. Why should Nepali industries choose products of Agilent Technologies? As I said, we manufacture best equipment at competitive prices and provide best services to our buyers. That´s why various companies prefer our products. We sold all the machines we introduced at the pharma expo because of their quality and novelty. Besides, we are an ISO certified company and we have employed world class scientists. Do you have any plans of appointing a new authorized distributor in Nepal other than Prudent Meditech International? No, we have no such plans as Prudent is doing a very good job in supplying equipment all over Nepal. We have a very good relationship with the company and we want to further strengthen it. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32440 The major parties are seriously engaged in negotiations on constitution writing, peace process and power-sharing. In this context, Nepali Congress General Secretary Krishna Prasad Sitaula spoke to Republica´s Kosh Raj Koirala on NC´s stance on various contentious political issues. Excerpts:  [break] Why has the integration process of the Maoist combatants been delayed? I believe integration process has been delayed due to the confusion of the Maoist leadership. The place where the issues of integration is discussed and brought to implementation is Special Committee. The Chairman of the committee is Maoist leader and Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai. He has to present the action plan prepared by the army in the Special Committee, and it goes to the implementation stage upon unanimous approval from the Special Committee. But that has not happened. So the ruling parties, mainly the UCPN (Maoist) is mainly to be blamed for the stalled peace process, not the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. Have you already arrived at consensus on the ranks of the Maoist combatants to be integrated in the Nepal Army? We have already agreed that the maximum number of the Maoist combatants to be integrated in the army. We have also clearly stated those opting for integration should meet standards set by the army. The seven-point agreement clearly specifies where we can give concessions to the Maoist combatants opting for integration. We have agreed the integration should not put negative effects in the careers of incumbent army officers. Basically, we will take the date of the combatants joining the PLA as date of commissioning, and the number of years they worked with the Maoists will be taken into consideration while determining the rank in the NA. But the Maoists are sticking to their demand for Brigadier General? I don´t think there is any possibility of giving them such a post. What the Maoists need to understand is that combatants are not joining the NA as their representatives. Once integrated, the Maoist combatants would be soldiers of the NA, and they all have to abide by the rules and regulations of the organization. The relations of the Maoist combatants with their mother party must be be fully detached. I believe the problem has risen as the Maoists have failed to understand this fact. How optimistic are you about the successful conclusion of peace process? I am fully optimistic that the peace process would be concluded. Without this there won´t be a new statute by May 27. We must find meeting point as agreed in the seven-point agreement. This is the common positions of all political parties. No one can run away from implementing the agreement. But there are concerns that peace process would be broken halfway through? There could be people, not satisfied with the political developments, who may wish to see it broken. Some elements that are against the institutionalization of federal democratic republic could be hatching conspiracies. But that is different. My understanding is that Nepali people desperately want to see peace process concluded and new constitution promulgated. This is in the best interests of the country as the ongoing peace process is linked with interests of Nepali people. What is the official position of NC on the integration proposal put forward by the Nepal Army? The official position of the NC will be presented by our colleagues who represent the NC in the Special Committee. But I think the army´s proposal that the directorate will be headed by a major general is not appropriate. I don´t think such a high ranking office should lead the directorate. Basically, the Directorate is based on the concept of civil defense army. I think colonel or brigadier general should lead such directorate. Given the nature of works the directorate would be carrying out, I do not think there is a need to create post of major general or lieutenant general. What progress have you made so far in regards to the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Disappearance Commission? Bills have already been tabled in the parliament and a sub-committee was formed to forge consensus among parties on contentious issues. Representatives of all parties are in the sub-committee. We have decided to hold a meeting of the sub-committee members at the presence of the top leaders of the three big parties and arrive at a consensus. The bills should be endorsed soon and the commissions should also be formed at the earliest. Let´s go back to constitution drafting again. System of governance has lately become one of the most contentious issues. How much progress has been made to resolve the issues? We have made a list of contentious issues for discussion to expedite the constitution drafting process. Madhav Kumar Nepal had presented a list of contentious issues at the three-party meeting on Thursday. All I want to say now is we can forge consensus on the contentious issues of new constitution once we conclude peace process. There won´t be any consensus as long as there is no conclusion of peace process. This means that we have a clear position that the new constitution is not possible without concluding the peace process. There have been much talk about national consensus government? Is NC vying for government leadership now? It will be natural for NC to seek government leadership once Baburamji is gone. I hope, Maoist and the UML won´t stake claim for government leadership again after the resignation of Baburamji. But we have not sought resignation of the prime minister yet. So far, we are focused on the conclusion of peace process. Our party president Sushil Koirala himself said NC would wait till mid-March. I am hopeful that national consensus government would be formed after mid-March. If the peace process is concluded by mid-March, there is a chance of forming a national consensus government. The change of the guard in the government becomes inevitable also in case there is no progress in peace process by that time. The leadership of Baburam Bhattarai will prove to be a failure by then. What´s your take on foreigners´ role in the Peace Process? Our neighbor India has a close interest and supported the peace process that started after singing in the 12-point agreement that led to the subsequent democratic movement in Nepal. We invited the UNMIN to monitor arms and armies of the Maoists and the UNMIN has already accomplished its mission. All countries including India, the US, UK, European Union and China have a desire to see sustainable peace in the country. Given the geopolitical situation of our country, it is natural to see our neighboring countries interested in the developments taking place in Nepal. Among them, India appears to be a country that is directly affected by our peace process. Though indirect, the involvement of India has been felt in all stages of peace process right from the 12-point understanding. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32188 With just three months to the end of the final extension of Constituent Assembly tenure, political parties have intensified discussions on sorting out thorny peace process and constitution-related issues. As well as the Big Three parties, the Madhesi block will have a big say in the settlement of both the issues. Kosh Raj Koirala and Gani Ansari spoke to Chairman of the Madhesi People’s Right Forum Upendra Yadav, who has played an instrumental role in Madhesi politics since the 2007 Madhes Movement, on issues of inclusion, constitution and peace process. [break] Madhesi leaders have of late hinted that a fresh movement is brewing in Madhes driven by the growing frustration with their elected representatives. What is your view on this issue? It is true that the disappointment among Madhesi people is growing. The place where all Madhesis, indigenous nationalities, dalits and others groups (i.e. Brahmans and Chhetris) can ensure their rights is the common platform of constitution. There can be inclusion in true sense of the term only if new constitution is promulgated. Without it, Madhesis, dalits and indigenous nationalities will remain where they are and those who are in powers will continue their rule. This is no solution to the problems we are facing. There must be an inclusive democratic system to address these problems. Some people still want to keep all powers in their hands. Such thinking has surfaced in constitution drafting as well. We won’t be able to address the problems of Madhesi and indigenous nationalities, nor can we accommodate the diversity we have without a new constitution. Our country will plunge into a war if the message goes out that there won’t be a new constitution or if we fail to deliver it. A new constitution is the only means to avert the likelihood of our country sliding into chaos. The remarks top leaders of various big parties are making are against national interest. The misfortune of our country will start the day our political leadership starts considering diversity a burden. It is the responsibility of all of us to protect the country from such disaster. How optimistic are you over the possibility of new constitution on time? I still have a slim hope. I believe the leaders of the big parties will seriously think about the country’s future. Not all leaders are dishonest. But they are wasting valuable time. Though we cannot bring a new constitution through procedural manner, we can take a fast-track approach. Likewise, a new constitution without federalism will be very dangerous. We cannot keep the issue of federalism pending. People won’t accept that. It will be just add fuel to the fire. Therefore, we should draft a new constitution based on the principle of inclusive democracy and federalism. The vested interests of the Big Three are chiefly to be blamed for the delay in drafting the new constitution. Can you elaborate on the fast-track method you hint at? All I mean is we should amend the Constituent Assembly (CA) calendar of event and draft a new constitution based on consensus among parties. The process should move ahead on the basis of political decisions. The issue of federalism has become complicated of late. The State Restructuring Commission (SRC) has also failed to produce a unanimous report. It was a mistake to form the Commission in the first place. Instead of appointing experts, party activists were appointed in the commission. They did not have any knowledge about the country, people’s political consciousness and aspirations. They tried to carve out federal states without understanding the country’s ground realities. Nevertheless, theirs is just a suggestion; not a decision. The problem can be addressed by amending the suggestions in such a way that the federal states truly honor people’s feelings and aspirations. What has become of the ‘One Madhes, one province’ idea that Madhes-based parties including MPRF have demanding? Other parties do not seem to have warmed up to the idea. This is because other parties are headed by ‘other groups’. They still cling on to the concepts Nepali rulers have held for the last 250 years. This is why their perception about Madhesis, dalits, indigenous nationalities and even women has not changed. The country can find solutions to its problems only after such a mindset changes. Politics is an art of compromise. But we should keep in mind the expectations and aspirations of the people while making such compromises. Will the people concerned get justice through such compromises? So far as the issue of One Madhes is concerned, it will be a province of Nepal, not any other country. Following the success of Madhes movement, the then Seven Party Alliance agreed on a Madhes autonomous state along with other federal states. In this sense, parties have already agreed to provincial autonomy for Madhes. Now they should work to implement the agreed points. We have demanded nothing new. There will be no problem if parties agreed to make the areas under Madhes one autonomous federal state. This is something already established by Madhes movement. But we don’t rule out the possibility of compromise on delineation of Madhes federal state if it ensures justice and equal rights, ends discrimination, as well as secures equal opportunity and equal participation with recognition of all identities. Of course, there can be a compromise. But we should step on the points we have already agreed. If not, it will create mistrust, which will ultimately poison the atmosphere of compromise. What is the view of your party on system of governance? We have a clear concept on the system of governance. There is no other party that has as clear concept on the issue. We believe that people should get a chance to directly elect the country’s rulers, i.e. president and parliamentarians. While the president should get a chance to form government, parliament should formulate rules and regulations and endorse legislations. We have seen anomalies resulting from designation of parliamentarians as ministers. The parliamentarians have done very little parliamentary works and engaged more in foul power plays. Parliamentarians for their part indulged in dirty horse trading in the past. So, we propose that the president be given a chance to form government on his own. Parliament should endorse the plan and policies developed by the president. Parliament has nothing to do with development plans; this should be taken care of by the state or the government. We see a prospect of stability in such a system. The biggest problem in the last 60-odd years is political instability. The Westminster model of governance cannot solve this problem. There is no point in arguing that president could turn into a dictator as he has to fully abide by responsibilities enshrined in the constitution and other laws. We can provide for periodic elections and restrict a person’s election as president to two terms and ensure constitutional supremacy. In such a system, there will be a powerful parliament and strong executive president. There is no overlapping in this system as there is in the Westminster model. If a parliamentarian becomes a minister, he will be a member of both the executive and the legislature. Is this a separation of powers in true sense? Likewise, there is no need to keep two power centers—president and prime minister. The tussle between these power centers could put underdeveloped countries like ours in real danger. How can a system that directly elects president be non-democratic? Such person can become dictator only when there is no constitutional supremacy or if he starts interfering with the judiciary. Let’s go back to the peace process. What do you make of the debate on ranks Maoist combatants are liable to in the army? I believe the peace process that started with the Delhi Agreement was in itself faulty, creating complications and difficulties. Then there was CA election, but this did not resolve the problem. After a long time, there have been some positive developments including regrouping and voluntary retirement of ex-Maoist combatants. But the peace process has not concluded yet. The failure to take peace process to its logical conclusion has made promulgation of new constitution impossible. It is the responsibility of the Maoists to conclude the peace process since they lead the government and the combatants in question also belong to the same party. The Nepal Army, where are the Maoist combatants are being integrated, is also under the same government. There is no point in fighting over ranks and stalling the whole peace process. Ranks are secondary issue. The important thing is an agreement in principle. The issue of number to be integrated in the army is also not a big one. However, we should be clear how many soldiers we need and for what purpose. An underdeveloped landlocked country situated between two emerging superpowers cannot afford a large army. Likewise, everyone has accepted the fact that Nepal Army is not inclusive. The army needs to be democratized and made more inclusive. Without this, this army cannot have a true national character. There have been allegations from various quarters that the Supreme Court rules against the interests of Madhesi people. A recent case in a point is the Supreme Court’s verdict on citizenship issue. What do you say on this? The apex court has to pass verdict based on existing constitution and laws. What good can we expect when the constitution itself is discriminatory and laws biased? The Supreme Court does not do any politics. So far as the issue of citizenship certificate is concerned, all bona fide citizens of the country should get the certificate. It is the duty of the state to provide them citizenship certificates. The state has utterly failed to meet that obligation. Another important thing is that children of a citizen are naturally the citizens of the country. It is inhumane to deny citizenship to such children. No one can be denied his/her nationality. The state should correct this anomaly by amending the constitution, and laws if create legal hurdles. The Tharu community has alleged that conspiracies are being hatched to make them Madhesis. They have also warned of street protests if the inclusion bill tabled in the parliament is not withdrawn. They seem to have fallen prey to unwarranted rumors. We have never said that Tharus should not be included. They should be ensured inclusion in all state organs. There are some people who have been running business in the name of fighting for the cause of Tharus who have spread such rumors. What is true is that all Tharus are living in Madhes. Since they have been living in Madhes, they have been identified as Tharus of Madhes. Senior UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal has proposed that each federal state be linked with India as failure to do so is likely to give more bargaining powers to southern states. What is your view on this issue? The original idea of linking each federal state with India came from King Mahendra. This demand is not a reflection of Marxism, Leninism or Maoism but of Mahendrabaad. King Mahendra delineated zones on north-south basis. The rationale was to consolidate his power and control the people living in the south. I believe the proposal of UML leader Madhav Kumar is a carbon copy of the idea propounded by king Mahendra. King Birendra too adopted the same principle while delineating five development regions and 14 zones. This failed to benefit the country in any way; it was only aimed at consolidating the king’s powers. I wonder how Madhav Kumar Nepal, who adheres to Marxism and Leninism, could propose such an obsolete idea. Nepali people won’t accept such proposal. This won’t be acceptable to Madhesi people at all. Madhesi people, let it be noted, haven’t asked that their state be linked to China. http://myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=32047 National Life Insurance Company (NLIC) is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Established in 1988, NLIC currently has a capital base of Rs 260 million and a life fund size of over Rs 6 billion. Republica recently caught up with the company´s CEO, Bharat Basnet, and talked about the company´s performance, its products and weaknesses of insurance companies. Excerpts:[break] How is the financial performance of the company? It has been satisfactory as we have put in a lot of efforts to diversify our product range in the last three to four years. In the last fiscal year, National Life was the top company in terms of premium collection through issuance of new policies. Although insurance companies are making huge profits, most of them, including yours, do not seem to be interested in raising their capital base. Is it because of excessive focus on dividend distribution? The Insurance Board has instructed all life insurance companies to raise their paid-up capital to a minimum of Rs 500 million by the end of the next fiscal year, from the current floor of Rs 250 million. Keeping this in view, we have already made provisions to raise our capital base to Rs 310 million. Within the end of the next fiscal we will be able to meet the regulator´s new capital requirement. Considering the transaction of individual insurances companies, which has reached tens of billions of rupees, do you think the new capital requirement is sufficient? The difference between the business of banks and ours is that we do not extend credit. We do make investments, but those investments are made in areas approved by the regulator. Besides, we do not invest in highly risky instruments. So, most of our investments are safe. That´s why I think the new capital floor fixed by the regulator is enough for insurers. But there are claims that because of weak capital buffers, insurance companies are not able to retain risks themselves and have to depend heavily on reinsurance companies? Actually the concept of absorbing the risks on our own by raising the capital has not taken roots in the country. Besides, the Insurance Board is also not clear on this concept. That´s why we are currently limited to covering risks of up to Rs 200,000. If the insured amount is higher than this, we resort to reinsurance companies (firms based abroad that sell insurance policies to insurance companies). Talking about your company, how are you planning to steer it in coming days? We are planning to become the biggest life insurance company in the country in terms of premium collection from the present third position. In the last fiscal year, our premium collection touched Rs 1.60 billion and interest income was recorded at Rs 500 million. That´s why we are aggressively mobilizing our agents to various parts of the country and trying to improve quality of our services. Currently, our bonus rate, at 5.6 percent per annum, is among the highest in the life insurance market. This factor has also helped us promote our products easily. What products are most favored by clients? The tradition endowment life insurance policies are still the most favored product in the market. Almost 60 percent of the products that we sell are endowment policies. Lately, child policies are also becoming popular. These policies make up almost 25 percent of the total policies that we sell. Recently, we also introduced pension plan and money back policies. Except for ULIPs (unit-linked insurance policies in which premiums are invested in debt or stocks chosen by customers), we have introduced all kinds of insurance policies available in the international insurance market. Are you planning to introduce new products this year? We have recently designed micro-insurance products for rural markets. We are currently waiting for the Insurance Board´s approval to introduce those products, which I do not want to disclose at this moment. We are planning to work in cooperation with microfinance institutions to sell these products. It is said rural areas have emerged as one of the lucrative markets for insurance companies? Is it true? That´s correct. That´s why I do not agree with claims that rural population is not aware about insurance. The sales of insurance policies are increasing in rural areas because of rising remittance flow. So it wouldn´t be appropriate to say that rural markets are, to some extent, playing an important role in boosting businesses. Republica had recently exposed that one of your corporate agents was operating pyramid scheme to sell insurance policies. Could you please give us an update on the matter? After the news was published, National Life Insurance sought clarification from the agent. But the corporate agent told us that it was not involved in illegal activities. Currently, the Insurance Board is investigating the matter. If it finds the company guilty, we will take action against it.