Ananda P Srestha:

The government under the chairmanship of King Gyanendra faces serious challenges having to cope with the problems of governance, security and a near civil war situation in the country. It will have to deal with the Maoist insurgency, as the past governments had to do. Though establishing peace figures high on the government agenda, it will, however, be prudent on its part to allow civil society and human rights groups to act as a bridge/link between the warring factions and find ways to initiate a meaningful dialogue.

In this context, the groups acting as the link will need to critically and dispassionately examine why the previous dialogues failed, and on that basis work out a roadmap for future dialogues. Besides, it is imperative that both sides, including the civil society and human rights groups, understand the ideology behind the tradition that constitutes a nation state and not succumb to the designs of greater power politics. This must form a crucial part of the conflict resolution mechanism, so it does not hurt the larger national interest. Peace through means of superior firepower can only usher in an uneasy peace – the peace of the graveyard.

Though establishing peace in the country is high on the government agenda, there are other issues that need serious looking into. Much harm, for example, has been done to Nepal’s foreign policy after 1990 and damage control measures need to be started to bring it back in line with the classic “yam and boulder” concept to which Nepal has no alternative in conducting its foreign relations. That balance between our giant neighbours was badly disrupted after 1990 under justification that ‘continuity of the same policy would mean following the Panchayat system’! Though leaders are well aware that it is in the national interest to give continuity to the old balanced approach, actions, for obvious reasons, were not initiated to alleviate the plight of the country’s foreign policy experts.

Agreed, the reversal of the post 1990 foreign policy trend to the old course will not be easy, but the harm done is certainly not beyond repair. It will, therefore, be wise even at this late hour to draw a clear line between ‘friendship’ and ‘national interests’ and restore the prestige this country had in plenty. With the 21st century having set in, a balanced foreign policy becomes even more pertinent considering the powerful global status our giant neighbours are likely to acquire in the first half of this century.

Nepal’s long porous border to the south, another longstanding issue, has acquired even wider dimensions following the Maoist insurgency. It is now more of a problem than a symbol of the ‘unique’ and ‘special’ relationship that Nepal and India are supposed to share. Border regulations according to international norms need to be implemented, as both Nepal and India are equally vulnerable, as some past incidents have shown. The yet to be resolved Bhutanese refugee issue and the heavy influx of people from across the border are reasons enough for Nepal to initiate the process.

Though much is said about Nepal’s tremendous water and hydro potential, history has it that whenever there is a change in the government or in the political dispensation in Nepal, India’s water policy, as if on cue, comes aggressively to the fore. At such moments, previous governments reverently ‘negotiated’ our major rivers based on the law of diminishing returns, if not on the law of vanishing returns, as was seen in the case of the ‘Common Rivers’ concept and the Mahakali package. Hopefully, such mistakes regarding one of our most valuable natural assets will not be repeated in future deals with neighbours.

No doubt, Nepal is abundantly gifted with unmatched natural beauty and tourist potential and that it keeps the country’s economy afloat. But sadly, to date, we have yet to formulate a tourism policy suited to our needs, reflecting the unique topography of the land that incorporates near sea level flatlands to the highest point on earth! To make matters worse, the Maoist insurgency has also taken a heavy toll on the smokeless industry and in the last six years has virtually reduced the golden goose to a sitting duck.

Thanks to the short-sighted policy adopted since the country was opened to tourists half a century ago, the Kathmandu Valley, Pokhara and Chitwan have been pampered beyond recognition, so much so that Kathmandu is now labelled one of the most polluted cities in the world! Pokhara too is paying the price considering the mushrooming lakeside resorts that have virtually destroyed the pristine beauty of the Phewa Tal and its surroundings. A wise tourism policy in line with the village tourism concept for spreading tourist destinations countrywide needs to be adopted and implemented on a phase-wise basis at the earliest.

Obviously, the new government has much to do, considering the gravity of the issues raised and a host of others like rampant corruption, rising prices and the still unresolved Bhutanese refugee issue, besides the country’s health, education, economy and administrative sectors that are in a poor condition. Although the new government has no magic wand, the reduction in the price of kerosene and cooking gas and a noticeable improvement in the security situation in Kathmandu and certain other urban pockets are some positive signs. But, to make a real difference, it will have to do much more.

Srestha is professor, Dept of English, TU