"...a contest of ideas and not weapons" - Congressman James T Walsh

Congressman James T Walsh, a republican, has been in the Congress for the last 18 years. Perhaps, he is the only member in the Congress who speaks fluent Nepali and keeps a close tab on Nepal, where he served as a Peace Corps volunteer during 1970–72. Walsh was instrumental in drawing considerable Congressional attention to the political developments in Nepal last year and the years before. As the Chairman of the United States Congress’ Friends of Ireland he was closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process. He is an influential member of House Appropriations Committee of the Congress that controls the power of the purse. John Narayan Parajuli spoke to Mr. Walsh in his office recently in Washington, D.C. about his experience in the Congress, his connection to Nepal and his take on Nepal’s peace process.

Tell us about your experience in the new Congress.

It’s not as much fun as it was. Being in the minority, I don’t get to make the decisions, I made before. I have to work with my new [Democratic] Committee Chairman and Subcommittee chairman. I have been here for 18 years, and I think I have the respect of my colleagues. And in areas where I am knowledgeable, I think I am still able to help make policy, and certainly will continue to follow issues of importance to me, and certainly Nepal is one of them.

It’s my impression that the Republican Congress held more hearing on Nepal last year than the new Congress. Is it party politics, or just the timing of the events?

I think it’s probably timing and probably priorities. I was in a position where I can get other members to hold hearings because it was timely with the revolution and the ceasefire and there was a lot happening in Nepal in the last couple of years. And probably people think things are quieter now. But also I think there were Republicans members like myself, who wanted to get more public attention to what was happening in Nepal. Hopefully the Democrats will also do that.

Now you keep a close tab on Nepal. What is your connection with Nepal?

It goes back a long time. When I was just finishing up my college, I applied for the Peace Corps, and I was accepted in an agriculture program, which surprised me because I had very little practical agriculture experience. I was sent to Nepal. I lived in Nijgarh, Bara. Our district capital was Kalaiya. We had a dera in Birgunj that we shared with four-five of my Peace Corps friends. When we went to the district krishi bikas meeting, we would stay in the dera, and would take the bus back and forth to Kalaiya. It was a very bumpy ride. I worked with farmers in Nijgargh Pachayat. I worked with people who moved down from hills and people who were indigenous in the terai-- the tharus. I grew wheat, corn, rice vegetables. I did a little bit of everything. I was able to see a lot of Nepal while I was there. I traveled to the West: Pokhara and Annapurna, and to Namche and the Everest region. I try to, as best I could, maintain my ties with friends whom I lived with. I email back and forth. I obviously follow the politics and the recent changes in Nepal.

I understand that you are planning to go back to Nepal. Have you planned anything specific yet?

Actually my hope is that I could go and observe the elections. That would be ideal. I think the elections are the critical event in the near term history of Nepal. But when I first came back here in 1991, and the government changed and democracy was established, we wrote to the king, and asked the king to respect the students and people who went to streets asking for democracy. And I saw the impact that the United States had, and I think that the United States continues to play a positive role encouraging democracy. So if I could go for the election, that’s when I would go.

The Maoists have joined the government. What’s your take on it?

I think it’s very significant that they have decided to participate in democracy. It should now be a contest of ideas and not weapons. I am pleased to point that they have relinquished their weapons. I think it is very important that they honor that commitment; that they not continue to threaten violence.
They should forswear weapons, put them aside forever and participate in democracy truly and fully.

Do you agree with the administration’s policy of isolating the Maoists as long as they don’t swear-off violence?

I don’t know if I would be as strict as the administration. The Maoists have set aside their weapons, if that continues, that builds confidence. And there should be other confidence building measures for the Maoists, if they continue to respond in a positive way, I think we should engage them. I think the international community should engage them. But they have to continue to keep their word and swear-off violence, and not use the threat of violence. But the fact that they still have guns does make one pause.

You have been closely involved with the Northern Ireland peace process, what’s your experience? Is there a lesson Nepal can learn from it?

I think there are some parallels. In Northern Ireland, people think it’s about religion. It was not really about religion. It was more about national aspirations. There is a group of people who align themselves with England; others align themselves with the republic of Ireland.
Basically there is a difference of opinion amongst people. The Republican and the Loyalists paramilitaries fought for 30 years, killed thousands of people. But they came to the conclusion that it would never be resolved militarily. They decided to work things out through ceasefire, elimination of weapons, what they referred to as “putting weapons beyond use,” confidence building, dialogue, and comprise. And it has taken a lot time—13 years since the ceasefire and they still don’t have a government. But very soon they will. And it is going to require the same process [in Nepal]: patience and persistence. And it will require the international community to stay engaged, to watch what’s happening. Just as the United Nations has steeped-in in Nepal, a group of countries have involved themselves in the Northern Ireland.

Critics say the United States was rather soft on the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and that it is unwilling to be equally flexible on the Maoists. Does ideology play a role in such considerations?

There‘re subtle differences. My view is that if, as I said, if the Maoists continue to perform and keep commitments, we should engage them, we should talk to them. This is somewhat different than the administration. The administrations under President Clinton and President Bush, there were time when they would not deal with the IRA. They continued to consider them terrorists even after the ceasefire. I have always been of the opinion that you have to engage, you have to talk, break down barriers and build confidence.
I think the fact the Maoists are communists is more of a problem, although the IRA is very much a socialist organizations.

As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, will you be willing to sponsor a bill to increase funding for Nepal, if the Nepal government requests, or on your own initiative?

Yes. I have always supported the additional funding for Nepal. I think we need to be helpful with the election process.
I would very much like to see the United States working with international organization like the World Bank help Nepal to create and harness the hydroelectric power that it has. Nepal has vast hydro electric potential. Before the Maoists revolution began, there was some real movement on harnessing some of the rivers in Nepal. It’s somewhat environmentally controversial. But there are ways to harness that power that would make Nepal energy independent, in fact an energy exporter.

State Department officials say they don’t want to been seen as competing with India—in terms of assistance. Is that a fair benchmark?

India is certainly much closer to Nepal, physically, culturally and spiritually. But I think that the United States can play a positive role working with Nepal’s neighbors in helping to coordinate activities. When I was there, you had Soviet Union, India and U.S. building the east west highway. Everyone was building a section. We should be able to continue to do that sort of thing.

How optimistic are you about the peace process?

So far, so good. I really want to see the elections; I want to see the elections run fairly. I don’t want to see any ballot intimidations by the Maoists or anyone else. I think Prime Minister Koirala is a remarkable man. I have met him a number of times. I think he has got the country headed in the right direction, but there are a lot of pitfalls between here and there. But I very hopeful that once the elections are over, the people of Nepal, who this is really ultimately about, will have the confidence that the government they elected is the government they wanted.

Anything you would like to add?

Just dherai namaskar and namaste to mero daju bhai, didi bahinii, and I miss Nepal, and I am looking forward to coming back.

Source: The Blog

John Narayan Parajuli is a Nepali journalist. Click here to visit his blog.

Time for SAARC to combat global warming

- Kuldip Nayar

The news is that India spent more than Rs 44,000 crores on weapons in the last three years, but not a single paisa on combating global warming. Even the Rs 3,500 crores meant for afforestation have been lying unspent since 2004. I thought that the various reports warning India against the colossal dangers of global warming would have awakened New Delhi to think of measures to combat the menace. Apparently no.

The famous Sunderbans in West Bengal has lost 10 per cent of its area, as well as some rare species, to the rising water. On the other hand, experts in the West say that glaciers are melting, raising the surface of seas. Because new glaciers are not replacing the old ones, many rivers have less water than before.

Environmentalist Sunder Lal Bahuguna who has been living not far from the source of the Ganga, Gangotri, complains that during the last three decades he has seen the river shrinking over the years. It appears that this is the story all over the region comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives which have found time to discuss everything under the sun, but never the environment, ecology or climate. Yet, these are the countries where global warming is affecting the environment the most.

The disappointing part is not the lack of knowledge, but the lack of interest. The worst may happen in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but India’s coastal cities may suffer equally. Climate change may turn fertile lands in the region into deserts. It is estimated that 200 million people will be forced to leave their hearth and home to new places where the influx of a large number of people may create its own problems. Less rain or too much of it at certain places is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I recall Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asking the agriculture ministry to analyse the reasons behind disturbed rainfall cycles. But there was no follow-up. The examination never went beyond the collection of press clippings and Mrs Gandhi’s own statement. The Department of Environment was set up in 1981. It is lost in trivialities. Studies done in India, however, indicate that economic development has been halved by hazards like climate. This is true of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. Their growth has also been curtailed by unpredictable natural factors.
One need not believe the World Wildlife Fund report which warned that humans would need to find two other earths in space to survive because the planet’s resources would be exhausted by 2050. Yet, immediate steps should be taken to save resources. Sometime ago, a Nobel laureate economist told me in Delhi that India’s problem would not be population, but water. This is true, because there is already a running battle between the states over the share of river water. Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan has revealed that the largest number of legal disputes pertains to water shortage. Punjab, Haryana. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are in constant litigation over water sharing. One hears shrill voices over the construction of the Kalabagh Dam from across the border.

Groundwater sources are also depleting in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Lucknow and Hyderabad. This is true of cities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as well. On top of it, trees are being cut indiscriminately in the region. For example, the Army has played havoc in Delhi by illegally building houses on the age-old ridge, cutting down hundreds of trees. As many as 30,000 trees are in the process of being uprooted in Lahore alone.

No doubt, we, the developing countries, are devoid of sensitivity over ecology. But strange is the attitude of the developed world, particularly the West, which has progressed at the expense of the poor nations. We are paying for their sins. Ugandan President Y. Museveni has aptly described the emission of gases by the developed countries as "an act of aggression" against the poor. "They have polluted for decades and we pay the price in lost landscapes and lost lives." Developed countries are also responsible for the gases concentrating in the atmosphere. This has been taking place cumulatively over the last 150 years, says Dr R.K. Pachuri, chairman of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at Brussels. "Even today if you look at the per capita emission, China and India are nowhere near the developed countries."

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Security Council’s first meeting on global warming could take place only a few days ago. As expected, the United States was opposed to the very idea of the meeting. Russia’s opposition is understandable, but definitely not China’s. Maybe, the latter is behaving like a passenger travelling on a third class compartment, shutting out the others after getting in. Dr Pachuri has predicted dire consequences: 30 per cent species will be wiped out, 3.2 billion people will face water shortage and large-scale melting of the Himalayan glaciers will play havoc in the Gangetic plains. If the sea level increases by a mere one foot, it will endanger Mumbai and Kolkata as much as it would Karachi, Chittagong and Colombo.

Whatever the reservations of America, Russia and China — the strange bedfellows — the Security Council’s meeting on global warming turned out to be an impressive show. As many as 52 nations participated in it, apart from the Council members. A preponderant majority argued that climate change posed a clear threat to international security. The West, like the haves, does not understand that the have-nots may one day become desperate if the distance between the two is not spanned. This applies as much to trade as it does to agricultural products and ecology.
America has already spent around $600 billion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Had it utilised one-third of it, $200 billion, to help the developing and underdeveloped countries adopt a low carbon economy, it would have changed the fate of millions of people in poor countries.

It is time the Saarc summit or countries in the region considered a strategy against global warming. An emergency meeting must be called, and India should take the initiative. But New Delhi is hardly active. Its silence is similar to its moribund attitude towards population explosion. The excesses committed during the Emergency stalled the birth control programme. The police reached the bedroom. Since then political parties have been afraid to even mention "birth control," lest they lose the vote as did the Congress in 1977. Pakistan and Bangladesh avoid even the phrase "family planning," because the fanatics there have linked it with religion.
Global warming is worse than the population explosion waiting to hit the region.

Source: The Asian Age

Rising India: A View from the Neighbourhood

India’s relations with South Asian countries function like traffic-lights and have failed to establish a stable, mature relationship based on mutual trust and a long-term vision of cooperation

By Nischal N. Pandey

Two point four billion people, or 40 % of the world’s population, live in China and India . Currently the United States has the largest and most technologically advanced economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $43,500 but with economic growth between 8 and 10 % per year, economists say that China and India are fast catching up. China’s current per capita GDP is $7,600 and India’s is $3,700 but all projections under realistic scenario made by the World Bank reveal that these two Asian giants are set to become the second and third largest economies in the world in PPP terms by 2020 next only to the USA. According to a report prepared in early 2005 by the National Intelligence Council, an in-house think tank of the CIA, “ India and China increasingly will flex powerful political and economic muscles as major new global players by 2020 likening the rise to the emergence of the U.S. as a world power, a century ago.”

Let us analyse how India’s emerging economic status in Asia and its strengths in many areas on the global level is re-defining its self-image leading to a new political role and leave the China perspective to more observant analysts than me from Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Its nuclear testing in 1998, the sheer number of its growing population, expanding middle class which in itself is the second largest market in the world, its robust military establishment, the acquiring by its navy of an aircraft carrier and the country's increasing sophistication in high-technology are shaping India as a rising political, economic and military power of this century. I would even say that this rise is “inevitable”. The checkerboard pattern of the Cold War alliance has long gone and the new India is now in the threshold of claiming its legitimate place in the international arena.

Once proudly non-aligned, India has turned its back on strategic policy independence through a military cooperation agreement with the U.S. that analysts say is the most far-reaching and comprehensive military agreement that India has signed with any country. Simultaneous improvements in relations with the U.S., the EU and Russia, Southeast Asia, Japan, and China demonstrates that for the first time in diplomatic history, India is forging significant strategic ties with both the east and the west. Although its Cold War alliance gave India access to much-needed industrial and military technology from the former USSR, it unfortunately remained backward and underdeveloped for decades due to the socialist policies of its successive governments. Since the economic liberalization initiated in the early 90s, which led to growth rates of 6-7 percent per annum, India’s global presence has been clearly visible. Its well-educated, young population has embraced state-of-the-art computer and information technologies, which has made it a global knowledge hub with a central place in the transitional movement of knowledge and services; India’s comparative advantage lies in the large and relatively young population. 70 percent of its population is literate, many of them speak fluent English and about half of them are under 30. In fact, according to one study there are more English speaking people in India than in any other country. So, while it is undoubtedly a rising power in the software, design, services and precision industries it must not be overlooked that the Indian Diaspora and Indians working abroad are playing invaluable roles in global innovation chain like here in Singapore. Today, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, CISCO systems all rely on Indian teams to devise software platforms and dazzling multi-media features for next generation devices.

Rarely has the ascent of a relatively poor nation been watched with such a mix of wonder, opportunism and skepticism basically because India, despite these achievements in so many areas still contains half of the world’s chronically hungry.

There are a few crucial issues that if left un-tackled are likely to hinder India’s emergence as a major world-power of this century. First, the liberalization wave and the ‘India Shining’ attribute that has been talked about with such glamour hasn’t reached places like North Bihar, North Bengal, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, the entire seven sister states of the Northeast, and many other rural areas of India. There are still jolting signs of extreme poverty even in urban centers supposedly to be the show-cases of economic development such as Dharavi in Mumbai which is Asia’s largest slum. These regional disparities in levels of economic development of the states and the slow pace of development in rural India is likely to thwart progress of the rest of the country.

The second area of concern is the South Asian region which is a big disadvantage for India in comparison to China as it “rises” to be a major power of this century. The east coast of China is situated in a highly dynamic and rich neighborhood. Neighbors like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore plus Hong Kong and Macau provide capital for investment, markets for Chinese exports, tourists from abroad, more advanced technology, and expertise. The neighborhood of India, in comparison, is less dynamic. Moreover, China has settled differences with all its neighbours in Southeast Asia and long given up the policy of exporting its ideology around its vicinity. It has since the early 80s shown little interest in the domestic politics of these countries and deals with a constructive outlook no matter which regime or leader is in power in these countries. Although hiccups remain in bilateral relations with Japan and on issues such as the nuclearization of the Korean peninsula and Taiwan, these are not likely to substantially impact on China’s speed of progress.

On the other hand, India’s relations with South Asian countries function like traffic-lights. The chronic tension, occasional conflict and perennial lack of trust between India and Pakistan and the frequent strain in relations between India and the immediate neighbors is likely to be a major barrier for re-defining its self-image and the world’s perception of India. As the largest country of the region, it bears a disproportionate responsibility for the success and failure of regional and sub-regional cooperation efforts in the region as compared to other countries; therefore it is condemned to be both the necessary engine as well as the likely obstacle in the fulfillment of the region’s potential. The last five decades of New Delhi’s policies towards its neighbors has comprehensively failed to establish a stable, mature relationship based on mutual trust and a long-term vision of cooperation.

The Indo-Pakistan relations has even been termed as a “tarot reader’s paradise.” The issue of Jammu and Kashmir has been and is likely to deter all efforts towards the harmonizing of bilateral relations and thereby prevent India from emerging as an international player especially as the Kashmir issue is sentimental to the larger Muslim world. It is an “unfinished agenda of partition” and the “core issue” in one view and an “un-vacated aggression” and “an externally sponsored terrorism,” according to another. There seems to be no middle-ground. But the sooner Indo-Pak relations improve the better for India’s long-term goal of “rising” as a major power.

New Delhi must also not forget that with increasing political and economic clout comes increased responsibility which demands a larger heart while dealing with neighbors. But although it aspires to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we can’t see how in contrast to its pre-1990 foreign policy, India is engaging with its neighbors differently. In the past, India frequently resorted to passionately transmitting internal trouble within the territory of smaller neighbours but the genie´ has most of the time uncorked from the bottle and rose up against its benefactor as in the case of more than two thousand Indian Peace Keeping Forces being killed in Sri Lanka and Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi being assassinated by a LTTE sponsored attack. Despite this grim memory, Delhi can neither aggressively back the Sri Lankan Army through a joint military cooperation because of the sentiments of Indian Tamils in Tamil Nadu nor support a Tamil eelam as wanted by V Prabhakaran because of the LTTE being branded as a terrorist outfit and the larger ramifications that it will have on India’s fragile southern flank. This policy bewilderment continues even as the LTTE now has already erected a mini air-force along with a navy of its own.

Nepal is another paradox of India’s neighborhood policy. Every major political change in Nepal since 1950 has been the outcome of the deterioration of its relations with India but every government that comes to power has had difficulty accommodating Delhi’s interests within Nepal. With every change, follows an invisible undercurrent of anti-Indian feeling which within a few years transforms into a dangerous surge of mass anti-Indian euphoria like it happened during the anti-Tanakpur demonstrations and the Hritik Roshan riots. History keeps on repeating and Delhi keeps on committing the same mistakes.

In 2005, it facilitated an understanding between the underground Maoists and the seven political parties in New Delhi although the Maoists at that time (and till today) were declared terrorists by the Government of India in order to help usher in democracy in Nepal. But India’s sympathy for democratic forces stops at the Nepal border and doesn’t cross over to neighboring Bangladesh where since January this year, 95,000 have been arbitrarily arrested, 19 people have been killed since the emergency was declared and while former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia has been accused of massive corruption another former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been accused of plotting murder. All these questions raise doubts that if India cannot solve problems effectively in its own backyard how can it play a greater role in the international front? Or is it the innate desire of some powers to want India to be bogged down so much in its own neighborhood that it cannot go ahead? Therefore, as the largest country in the region, it must make sure that these countries become its natural allies not by fear but by genuine bond of friendship. This can only happen when it stops taking sides and having “preferences” in internal political dynamics of these countries. They should feel that India is an opportunity for them whereby the SAARC as a whole becomes the most vocal advocate of India ’s legitimate place in the permanent category of the UNSC.

The third area of crucial importance is how India manages the Naxalite problem because as we have seen Indian states including Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, parts of Orissa are badly affected by Naxal terror. Communism being a communicable disease has engulfed all these states in such a major way that the Naxal problem has now been regarded as the second most dangerous conflict taking place in India after Kashmir. The fourth area of concern is the multiplicity of crises stemming from recurrent and escalating conflict in the Northeast region. Northeast India and Southeast Asia have a long history of affinity and shared religious, cultural and economic ties; thus it is a vital determinant for the success of the ‘Look East Policy’.

Lying at the inter-section of Southeast Asia and South Asia; India’s Northeast shares more commonalities ethnically, culturally and linguistically with its Southeast Asian neighbours than any other country of South Asia. The region is an abode of 200 diverse ethnic and tribal groups who belong to the Southeast Asian region’s culture zone, bearing striking societal similarities. Northeast India is also a natural land bridge linking the two regions as it is at the cultural and ecological crossroads of South and Southeast Asia . Unfortunately, it continues to be beset with massive infiltration of people from outside the region, ethnic strife and geographic isolation . It also harbors the oldest insurgencies of independent India that are becoming increasingly intractable. In fact, four states – Assam , Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura-- witness scales of conflict that can be categorized as low intensity wars. There has to be a combination of economic development, massive central investment and negotiations with these outfits to resurrect the Northeast which is extremely vital for the success of India ’s Look East Policy.

There are other emerging challenges as well such as energy and water crises which are going to be great barriers to economic and social progress in the coming years. Furthermore, at least five million Indians are currently living with HIV. According to UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic published in 2006, India has the largest number of people living with HIV than any other country in the planet. India also needs to do more in the sports sector which in comparison to that of China is dismal if one is to compare the medals tally in the Olympics and the Asian games. It must try to hold the Commonwealth games by 2010 and even the Olympics by 2020 to project its growing eminence in the international scene.

Although the challenges are enormous, the prospects are bright for India which is not only in Information Technology and trained human resources but also in the realm of “cultural power”. Its culture and music, arts, Indian Miss Universe and Miss Worlds, Hindi films and its free media are only some of the vital elements facilitating its soft power status. Most importantly, India is a functioning democracy. If it is able to loosen up infrastructural bottlenecks, resolve implementation problems due to political and bureaucratic hassles, change its mind-set as regards to dealing with neighbors; it maybe second or third to the U.S. and China in the loop but it is ultimately going to win the marathon.

(Excerpts of the author’s presentation at an international dialogue on “Regional Perceptions of Asian Powers for Global Change: With Focus on Rising China and India” organised by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, held in Singapore 26-27 April 2007. A strategic analyst and former director of the Institute for Foreign Affairs, the author can be contacted at nina@ntc.net.np)

Source: Nepalnews

The World Has Just 8 Yrs To Fight Global Warming

- Nitin Sethi

The world cannot remain a fossil fool anymore, oblivious of the environmental destruction wrought as it guzzles fuels like coal and oil.

The world has just eight years to act and bring down the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere if the rising global temperatures are be contained between 2-2.4 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era, a hard-hitting report of the UN’s apex body on climate change released on Friday said.

All countries, including India, will have to take drastic steps to shift from fossil fuels like coal and oil, which emit global warming gases upon burning, in order to avert a global crisis, the report said with a firmness and certainty that the experts of more than 100 countries have never asserted before.

It has warned that any delay in action would lead to the temperatures rising alarmingly.

Nailing all quibbles on climate change from sceptics’ chambers, the report warned that emissions of heat-trapping gases had increased alarmingly by 70 per cent between 1970-2004, with levels of carbon dioxide increasing by 80 per cent over the same period.

In an ominous prediction, it noted that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels along current lines, then the dangerous emissions would rise by 90 per cent by 2030.

The recommendations mark repudiation of arguments of both developing and developed countries.

Countering the argument of the developing countries, like India and China, that reducing emissions would hit their economies, the report says that at worst, the global GDP would be blunted by about 3 per cent by 2030 if it undertakes these emission cuts.

It, however, admits that some countries will bear the brunt more than others.

On the other hand, developed countries have also been bluntly told that they would have to change their lifestyles and alter consumption patterns. These countries, with a mere 20 per cent of the world’s population, account for 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. The message for them is that mere adoption of technologies won’t do.

Source: Times of India

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

- SWAMINOMICS/SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.
The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.
Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.
In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.
We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.
Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.
That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.
The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.
I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.
Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.
Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.
Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.
We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

Source: Times of India

Antinomies of democracy

- CD BHATTA

The year 2006 marks the watershed in Nepali politics. People's movement has brought some sort of relief to the public and hope for a new politics - which was viewed as a key source of friendship in which moral excellence could be acquired and displayed (Aristotelian notion). It was expected that reality of power would not be the defining reality of political discourse. One year down the road however, a great deal of fear is lurking partly due to the fact that much admired loktantra - by the people is becoming more and more oligarchic, that is, of the few and for the few; society is entering into the state of nature and politics is shifting towards the place of contestation (containment of power) as in the Machiavellian term. The social frontiers of the state are changing day by day but the persisting tension and collaboration between political society and civil society has not been able to adjust with this changing pace. This is because the tensions and collaborations are driven by the dynamics of power politics rather than broader cause of political and social stability in the country.

Let me begin with current talk on the unification of professional political forces of different ideologies that is, communists, democrats and (far) rightists. The logic behind unification, being floated by the respective political party, is based on mere rhetoric of egalitarian society with republican system of governance in place. And political parties are proposing their own prescriptions. However, going by the run-down history of political events down the road of past twelve months - it looks that 'conditions' that could provide political stability in the country are still missing. It is because current political actors, like in the past, have failed to accommodate all societal forces into the institutional life of the state. Even if political parties are united, it is not going to make much difference in polity because the new system of governance is already forming its own neo-patrimonial classes on top of old classes.

Nepali state is dictated by the Hobbesian nature of element(s). For example, three factors that have immensely dominated Nepali state affairs after Jana Andolan-2 are eight political parties, civil society and mushrooming number of 'interest groups'. These element(s), in one way or the other, are engaged in preserving their political, social, economic, and to some extent, even personal interests (power seekers) at this historic juncture of political turn-over. What has been certainly missing from the current political scene are citizens (those who cannot or are not in a position to organize on their own) who are nowhere to be mentioned.

The embedded elitism in every sector of governance and mere ranting of loktantrik ganatantra (not exhibited in practice) by political parties and the civil society indicate that regime change came about through 'elite settlement' among political parties. Civil society though has played a crucial role for regime change but failed to instil civic values. The convergence between 'old class' and 'new class' of political leaders is motivated by the vested interests as against the common interests. The unstable and mushrooming networks of opposition, the lack of connections between civil society and citizenry at large and absence of nationalist agenda from the political discourse is resulting in the resignation of mass population from elite politics. And this certainly does not herald prosperous future for the country.

The expansion of political society and elite shift of civil society members to political society have corroded the very notion of civil society. In fact state and citizens have been colonised by the political and (un)civil society. The shift of civil society organisations and colonisation of public sphere by political society especially after Jana Andalon 2 (like in the earlier Andolans) is not considered normal pattern of democratic politics. It is rather somewhat abnormal condition and implies thin quality of state of democracy and civil society.

This shift of civil society from civic sphere to political sphere, mere expansion of political society and the rise of various interest groups are maintaining "revolutionary situation" in the country. The reason behind this phenomenon is that professional political class (political entrepreneurs) have grossly ignored the genuine interest of citizens. The political class is simply treating Nepali state as their personal enterprises. It appears that ownership of the state is shifting towards 'eight political parties' and the Kathmandu centred civil society members. Perhaps this could be the reason, among others, why citizens are forming their own groups and exerting pressure against the state on different themes (citizens against the state). Our political leaders have no dearth to understand this broader public uprising. In contrast, they have virtually closed channels of communication with groups who are outside the purview of parties and parliaments. The hijacking of public sphere by political society, urban middle class elites, official civil society and marginalization of peripheral civil society organizations (civic feudalism) also begs some fundamental questions on state ownership (the popular sovereignty for that matter).

The fundamental problem, in this regard, primarily stem due to (1) politicisation and elite shift of civil sphere into the political sphere and vice versa, (2) elite domination in civil society and missing link between members and leaders in civil society organisations and civil society and citizen and (3) patron-client relationship between civil society, political society and their masters (donors and foreign powers). These factors, indeed, are contributing towards incivility and civic euphoria of 2006 is slowly evaporating.

Summing up, prevalence of patron-client links between political society and civil society do not guarantee impartiality; the parties in power, collaborating with their client in civil society (the interest groups) cannot guarantee comprehensive state and civil society relationship that can promote democracy in the country. The existing relationship between political parties and interest group leadership is benefiting only the political parties and those elite with the suitable qualifications to shift into politics. This is how politically relevant social capital and cultural capital is transforming into political capital.

Nepal is now in the throes of a major turbulence and challenges that lie ahead of Nepali politics are multiple and immense. Changes are already taking place in different spheres of society but Nepali state is not prepared to deal with these changes. The wide-ranging upsurge of marginalised and oppressed strata of society has forced us to think beyond formal politics and tap the deeper dimensions of reality. Nepali state is losing internal sovereignty to varied interests groups mainly due to anachronistic political practice which is driven by the Machiavellian notion that 'political power' should not be shared? if the tension and collaboration between political society, civil society and others societal actors are tied up merely to maintain status quo or secure their own positions how can we expect to have a new Nepal? Hence imagination of a new Nepal under the existing scenario is just idealistic, not materialistic.

Source: Kathmandu Post

‘Education is too specialised today’

Excerpts from an interview with eminent film maker and theatre personality, MS Sathyu. Known for Garam Hawa and other films, Sathyu never completed his graduation, opting instead to join the world of filmmaking. He shared his views with M. Radhika.

What were your dreams and aspirations as a student?

Whatever I wanted to become, I have more or less become. I wanted to become a filmmaker. And I wanted to do theatre, which I still do. True, there is always the feeling that I could have done much more.

Did your education help you reach those goals? Did it hamper your achievements considering you gave up formal education to pursue filmmaking?

Education was not as specialised as it has become today. I could not specialise in anything. We had a curriculum, had to go through the syllabus. Then you went to college and opted for either Science or Arts. My father did not want me to pursue an insecure profession like filmmaking, so I opted for a least-chosen BSc. combination — Chemistry, Botany and Geology. Two years on, it was pointless for me. By then my interest in arts was more rooted. I went to Bombay to start work in 1952.

Was there anything that you wanted to change in the education system then?

I did not want to change anything, never gave any thought to it. It was a system that existed already. Besides, there were only a few specialised places that taught what I wanted. Bangalore’s Jayachamarajendra Polytechnic was the only institution that taught sound recording. Govind Nihalani, Murthy, Sathyan — they all came from there.

Were you satisfied with the education your children received? Was there any aspect you would have liked to change?

Seema Sathyu is a painter by profession. She did her MFA in Baroda and MA in painting at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. Shaili is a qualified teacher. She dropped out of her architecture course to pursue education. They opted for whatever they wanted. I did not come in their way. My youngest daughter also pursued theatre. She runs the Indian People’s Theatre Association, India’s oldest theatre group.

What are your aspirations for India’s educational system today?

Education has become more of a business proposition; more for the elite and less for the general masses. There are no community schools. No concept of belonging to an area and going to the school in the neighbourhood. Our country’s education policy is wrong. We have followed what the British left behind. The economic divide is glaring. Yet we have done quite a bit — states like Kerala have achieved 100 percent literacy.

Do you subscribe to the concept of common schools for all children?

I am all for common schools. In cities, children have choices but in villages all classes of people go to the same school because there is no alternative available. In cities there is more disparity. More children are educated in cities than in villages.

May 05, 2007

Source: Tehelka

सङ्घीय धरातल र दल

Girija Prasad Koirala and Prachanda signing Comprehensive Peace Agreement

- टुकबहादुर थापामगर

जनआन्दोलन-२ ले र्सार्वभौमसत्ता नेपाली जनतामा हस्तान्तरण गरे पनि देश एकात्मक शैलीबाट नै अगाडि बढिरहेको भान हुन्छ । अन्तरमि संविधान घोषणा भएको ३५ दिनभित्र संशोधन हुनु र संशोधित संविधानले पनि सङ्घीय व्यवस्थाका बारेमा स्पष्ट पार्न नसक्नुले यसलाई पुष्टि गर्छ । ऐतिहासिक जनआन्दोलन-२ लाई २००७ र ०४६ सालको भन्दा निकै फरक ढङ्गले लिनर्ुपर्दछ । ००७ सालको आन्दोलन एक सय चारवर्षो निरङ्कुश राणा शासनको अन्त्य र ०४६ सालको जनआन्दोलनको लक्ष्य ३० वर्षो निरङ्कुश पञ्चायती व्यवस्थाको अन्त्य गरेर प्रजातन्त्रको स्  थापना गर्नु थियो । तर, ०६३ सालको जनआन्दोलनको लक्ष्य दर्ुइ सय ३८ वर्षम्मको राजतन्त्रलाई समाप्त गर्दै लोकतान्त्रिक पद्धतिमार्फ देशको राजनीतिक, आर्थिक, सामाजिक र सांस्कृतिक रूपान्तरण गरेर राज्यको पुनःसंरचना गर्नु रहेको थियो । त्यसैगरी यसपटकको जनआन्दोलनको लक्ष्य १० वर्षो माओवादी 'जनयुद्ध' समाप्त गरी राज्यलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस् थामा लगेर केन्द्रीकृत राज्य व्यवस्थाको अन्त्य गर्नु पनि हो ।

देशलाई जातीय, क्षेत्रीय वा सांस्कृतिक के आधारमा सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा लैजाने भन्ने मुद्दा अहिले एउटा प्रमुख चुनौती बनेको छ । जातीय र क्षेत्रीय आधारबाट सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्था बनाउनर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने प्रस् ताव चर्को स्वरले उठेको छ । सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थाको आधारबारे कुरा गर्दा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र स्ाांस्कृतिक वा अन्य विकल्पलाई माने पनि अहिलेको आवश्यकता भनेको सङ्घीय व्यवस्थाद्वारा जातीय आधारमा समानुपातिक राज्य संयन्त्रमा समान सहभागी हुन पाउनर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने नै हो । किनभने, दर्ुइ सय ३८ वर्षम्म एउटै जाति र वर्गले केन्द्रीकृत रूपबाट शासन गर्दै आइरहेको छ । यस्तो शासन व्यवस्थाको अन्त्य गरी देशलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा नलगी सुखै छैन । नेपालको यथार्थ भू-राजनीतिक धरातलको पहिलो समस्या भनेकै जातीय असमानताबाट निर्माण भएकोे सामाजिक बनोट नै हो । क्षेत्रीय, लैङ्गिक र वर्गीय रूपबाट निर्माण भएको सामाजिक संरचना अर्को समस्या हो ।

अहिले नेपाली जनताको मुख्य चाहना भनेको शक्ति र साधनस्रोतको व्यापक बा“डफा“ट गरी सबै तहमा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र अन्य प्रकारले पछाडि परेका समुदायको समान सहभागिता हुनर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने हो । यदि र्सार्वभौमसत्ता जनतामा निहित छ भने शक्तिको बा“डफा“ट पनि त्यसै अनुरूप हुनर्ुपर्दछ । यसका लागि देश सङ्घीय व्यवस्थामा जानुबाहेक विकल्प छैन । एकातिर ठूला राजनीतिक दलहरू र्सार्वभौभसत्ता जनतामा निहित हुनर्ुपर्दछ भनेर जनताको र्समर्थन लिई आफू लोकप्रिय हुन खोज्छन् । र, अर्कातिर उनीहरूको भनाइ व्यवहारमा लागू नहुनुले दलहरूको शासन गर्ने शैली पनि एकात्मक, निरङ्कुश र सामन्ती खालको देखिन्छ । ठूला राजनीतिक दल नेपाली काङ्ग्रेस र नेकपा -एमाले) सङ्घीय व्यवस्थाका बारेमा स् पष्ट छैनन् । अझ कस्तो र के आधारमा सङ्घीय व्यवस्था कायम गर्ने भन्ने त धेरै टाढाको विषय हो । उनीहरूबाट सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस् थाको खाका बाहिर आउन नसक्नुको मूल कारण हो- उनीहरू सुविधाभोगी छन्, बढीभन्दा बढी सम्पत्ति आर्जन गर्ने चाहना राख्छन् र अर्को आफूस“ग भएको सत्ताको शक्ति हस्तान्तरण गर्न चाह“दैनन् ।

देशलाई माओवादीहरूले भनेजस्तो सङ्घीय व्यवस्थामा लैजाने हो भने पनि नेपालको जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र सांस्कृतिक विविधतामा कुनै परविर्तन आउ“दैन । किनभने, हरेक जिल्ला वा क्षेत्रमा बसोवास गर्ने विभिन्न जातजातिहरूमा जातीय र सांस्कृतिक विविधता छ । उदाहरणका लागि माओवादीले विभाजन गरे अनुुसार मगरात क्षेत्रलाई आधार मान्दा यहा“ विभिन्न जातजातिको बसोवास छ । यहा“ मुख्य बसोवास भनेको मगर, क्षेत्री, बाहुन र दलितको छ । यस क्षेत्रमा मगरको जनसङ्ख्या ३५।७ प्रतिशत छ भने बाहुन, क्षेत्री र ठकुरीको ५१.७ प्रतिशत छ । दलितको १२.४ प्रतिशत रहेको छ । यसका साथसाथै अन्य जातिको पनि उपस्थिति छ । पर्ूण्ा बहुमत कुनै जातिको छैन । सेती-महाकालीमा क्षेत्रीको बहुमत भए पनि अन्य जातिको पनि उपस्थिति रहेको छ । यस क्षेत्रमा क्षेत्री, बाहुन र ठकुरी ८५.७ र दलित १४.२ प्रतिशतको हाराहारीमा छन् । त्यस्तै, मधेशलाई हर्ेर्ने हो भने पनि मधेशीहरूको २६.२ प्रतिशत, मधेशी जनजातिको १७.१ प्रतिशत, पहाडे बाहुन र क्षेत्रीको २६.९ प्रतिशत, पहाडे जनजातिको ७.८ प्रतिशत, मधेशी दलितको २.६ र मुस्लिमको १९.१ प्रतिशत जनसङ्ख्या छ । फरक यति हो कि कुनै क्षेत्रमा कुनै जातिको बहुमत अवश्य छ तर पर्ूण्ा बहुमत भने सेती-महाकालीमा बाहेक अन्यमा कुनै जातिको छैन ।

जो केन्द्रीकृत शासन व्यवस्था कायम रहोस् भन्ने चाहन्छन्, तिनीहरूले विश्वको सङ्घीय राज्यको उदाहरण दिएर देश टुक्रिएको तर्क राखे पनि यहा“को यथार्थ राजनीतिक धरातल भनेकोे सङ्घीय राज्यद्वारा जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र लैङ्गिक असमानताको अन्त्य गर्नु हो । बीपी कोइरालाको प्रजातान्त्रिक समाजवाद होस् वा मार्क्सवादी समाजवाद वा माओको साम्यवाद नै किन नहोस्, सबैको एउटै उद्देश्य भनेको समतामूलक समाजको निर्माण गर्नु हो । जातीय र क्षेत्रीयताको मुद्दा उठ्नुका पछाडि राज्यले वषौर्ंवर्षम्म जातीय र क्षेत्रीय असमानताको व्यवहार गरेकाले नै हो । विविध जातजाति र विविध भौगोलिक क्षेत्र भएको ठाउ“मा जाति र क्षेत्रका मुद्दा उठ्नुलाई स् वाभाविक मान्नर्ुपर्दछ ।

देशलाई सङ्घीय व्यवस्थामा लैजानर्ुपर्दछ भन्ने विषयमा माओवादी अन्य दलभन्दा केही अगाडिजस्तो देखिन्छ । तर, व्यवहारमा उसलाई जा“च्न बा“की नै छ । कम्तीमा पनि माओवादीले सङ्घीय राज्यको खाका कोरेको छ र बहसको विषय बनाएको छ । तर, यसै आधारमा काङ्ग्रेस र एमालेका नेताहरू सङ्घीय राज्यको पक्षमा छैनन् भन्ने निष्कर्षनिकाल्नु भने गलत हुनेछ ।र्
भर्खरै संशोधित अन्तरमि संविधानमा पनि सङ्घीय राज्यको संरचना कस्तो हुने भन्नेबारेमा आठ दल स्पष्ट नहुनुले अझै पनि तिनीहरू सङ्घीय राज्य खडा गर्नेबारे स्पष्ट छैनन् कि भन्ने शङ्का जन्मिएको छ । तर्सथ, यस्तो शङ्का मेटाउनका लागि आठ दलले संविधानसभाको चुनाव अगाडि नै सङ्घीय राज्यको खाका कोर्नुपर्दछ । यस्तो खाका कोर्दा पारस्परकि सम्बन्धमा खलल नपर्ने खालको हुनर्ुपर्दछ । केन्द्रीकृत राज्यलाई सङ्घीय राज्यमा ढाल्दा जसरी एकात्मक राज्यमा अहिलेसम्म विभिन्न जातजातिबीच सद्भाव र समन्वय कायम रहिरह्यो, त्यसरी नै सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा पनि रहनर्ुपर्दछ । एकात्मक राज्य व्यवस्थामा असमानताको खाडल धेरै थियो भने सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा त्यो खाडल हटेर जानेछ । राजतन्त्रको अन्त्यस“गै केन्द्रीकृत राज्यको अन्त्य हुनेछ र पछाडि पारएिका समुदायको राज्यसत्तादेखि अन्य तहमा सहज पह“ुच हुनेछ । शक्ति र साधनस्रोतको समानुपातिक बा“डफा“ट हुनेछ ।

जातीय, क्षेत्रीय, लैङ्गिक र वर्गीय विविधताको न्यूनतम प्रतिविम्ब झल्किने गरी राज्यसंरचनाको व्यवस्था नगरनिाले अहिलेसम्म नेपाली राज्य पहाडे मूलका बाहुन, क्षेत्री र ठकुरी आदिको मात्र प्रतिनिधिमूलक संस् थाजस्तो बन्न पुगेको छ । राज्यको विविधता जसरी निर्माण भएको छ, त्यस् तै प्रकारको सुहाउ“दो शासन व्यवस् था अपनाउनुपर्ने अहिलेको आवश्यकता हो । त्यो भनेको सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थाबाट मात्र सम्भव छ । अहिलेको एकात्मक राज्य व्यवस्  थामा जसरी जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र सांस्कृतिक विविधता छ, त्यसरी नै देशलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस् थामा रूपान्तरण गरेपछि पनि यी विविधताबाट सङ्घीय राज्य टाढा हुने छैन भन्ने विश्वास दिलाउनु जरुरी छ । नेपालको यथार्थ भू-राजनीतिक धरातल भनेको यही विविधता नै हो । मुलुकलाई सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्थामा लैजा“दा राजनीतिक दलले देशको जातीय, क्षेत्रीय र लैङ्गिक विविधतालाई भुल्नु हु“दैन । यी पक्षहरूलाई ध्यान दिइएन भने सङ्घीय राज्य व्यवस्था नाम मात्रको हुनेछ ।

(थापामगर प्राज्ञिक अनुसन्धानमा क्रियाशील छन्)

सोर्स: नेपाल