NGOs get fat while Musahars left high and dry
Despite the many political transformations Nepal has recently witnessed, the lives of the Musahars, a Dalit community from the Tarai, have barely changed.
Musahars have been living in 24 districts of Nepal for generations and work mainly as manual laborers. They are deprived of education, healthcare and jobs, as well as government services and facilities.
Among the 22 castes Nepal lists as Dalits, five are from the hills while the remaining 17 are from the plains. The government spends millions of rupees every year in the name of improving the Dalit communities’ living standards. But many Dalits have not benefitted.
Musahars are treated as untouchables and insulted. Many allege that international NGOs such as UK Aid, Department for International Development (DFID) and Street Child have not been transparent in their financial transactions and suspect irregularities.
Nepal National Musahar Association (NNMA) says that due to irregularities, the centers established for the purpose of improving the lives of Musahars have been unable to function properly. DFID has been running a project called ‘Break the Bond’ at the centers in partnership with various local
organizations.
Even though the centers have been giving training on literacy, life skills, income generation and women’s awareness, a local Musahar leader Pacchu Majhi claims that they have been ineffective. “INGOs have been cheating us. They call us for a day, offer us food, and then ask us to sign an attendance sheet for the whole month. But they do not care about improving our lives or about educating us. NGOs are getting fatter while we get poorer,” he laments.
At an NNMA press conference in Janakpur on June 23, General Secretary Ram Sworup Sada accused the dozens of Musahar centers across several districts of being an easy source of money for their officials. Currently, there are 17 Musahar centers in Mahottari, 24 in Dhanusa and 21 in Siraha. “There is hardly any Musahar participation at such centers,” alleged Sada.
NNMA has issued a press release demanding that 60 percent of the employees of the Musahar centers be Musahars, that the age group eligible for enrollment at the centers be changed, and that the budget and activities of the centers be made public.
Other demands include making Musahars in-charge of monitoring the centers, and giving Musahar girls
Rs 30,000 to Rs 50,000 for running a business. The release warned that failure to meet the demands would lead to street protests and a boycott of the center’s activities.
Why diversify?
The federal government of KP Oli says ‘diversifying’ away from India and China is among its key foreign policy priorities. After coming to office a year and a half ago, Oli sought to bring Nepal-India ties on an even keel. He has been as keen to involve the northern neighbor in Nepal’s development endeavors. Yet his government has tried to do much more. Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali made a historical bilateral visit to Washington DC, in the clearest sign of Nepal’s wish to diversify away from its two neighbors. On the occasion, the Americans were quick to point out how Nepal had now become a key component of its (anti-China) Indo-Pacific Strategy. The Nepali side denied it was part of any such strategy. (Yet the steady flow of senior US officials to Nepal suggests the Americans are determined to push it.)
But what do we make of the government efforts to reach out to countries like Costa Rica, Cambodia and Vietnam? Can these efforts be seen as part of the same diversification policy? What of PM Oli’s most recent trips to the UK and France? Many see no method to the government’s foreign policy ‘madness’. Former Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey says national interest rather than diversification should be at the heart of Nepal’s foreign policy.
Carnegie India’s Constantino Xavier disagrees. He lauds Oli for trying to reach out to countries other than big powers, which he thinks gives Nepal “more options”. But even if the intent of the government is right, it is failing in execution. During his UK and France visits, he could not even get an audience with their heads of state. Nor could any of the agendas he had taken along be finalized. It is also unclear what was achieved from his trips to Cambodia and Vietnam.
If Nepal stands for a non-permanent UN seat tomorrow, will Costa Rica or Cambodia support its candidacy? Will they speak out in Nepal’s favor in case of another blockade? Or are they ready to invest here? If the government has a clear goal, there is a lot to be gained from diversifying our foreign relations. But without such a clear goal, Nepal could overstretch and its international standing might take a bad beating …
Frictions galore in the new federal republic as the PM consolidates power
In the third week of May, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli remarked that provincial and local governments are not free and independent entities, but units under the federal government, thereby implying that he holds executive power over all three tiers of government. This hinted of Oli’s desire—and his government’s increasing attempts—to concentrate power in his hands. Experts caution that such centralization of powers would be detrimental to both the nascent republic and the new federal structure. After the 2006 people’s movement, Oli has been projected as a senior mainstream leader who is not fully committed to federalism and republicanism. Ironically, he is now in the country’s driving seat and is responsible for implementing its federal setup.
Oli’s statements (and steps) have ratcheted up the tensions between the federal and provincial governments. There are several instances of the prime minister crossing the red line set by the constitution when it comes to the division of powers between the federal, provincial and local governments. Oli has already snatched away several rights granted to the provincial governments.
Provincial chief ministers and heads of local bodies have long been complaining that they are being denied the opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights. They are also criticizing the federal government for not allocating sufficient budget to them. At the same time, provincial and local governments lack adequate human resources to carry out their responsibilities. They are systematically being made more and more dependent on the federal government.
Political analyst Chandra Kishore says Province 2 is unhappy with the central government for not giving it sufficient budget. “In some areas, the province is collaborating with the federal government but there also are issues that have widened the rift between the two. The federal government is not serious about formulating necessary laws for the provinces, which also suffer from a lack of sufficient staff. And there are differences over how to manage the police force and other security issues,” says Kishore. Schedule 6 of the constitution clearly gives the provincial governments the right to make laws on the maintenance of law and order and the formation of a state police force.
Parallel power-centers
The Oli government has curtailed the rights of the provinces by appointing chief secretaries and secretaries to provincial governments. In the name of security arrangement, there have been systematic attempts to increase the power of the federal and local governments (at the expense of the provincial governments). Currently, the chief district officers (CDOs) appointed by the federal government have the right to mobilize the police force. In a draft bill, Province 2 has proposed appointing district administrators who will hold parallel positions to the CDOs. This is likely to create problems in the coming days.
Generally, other provinces are not as vocal in their criticism of the center as is Province 2. But complaints are heard not only from Province 2, whose government seems more hostile toward the center, but also from other chief ministers, who are from the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) itself. Speaking to journalists in Butwal on June 17, Province 5 Chief Minister Shankar Pokhrel, who is close to PM Oli, said, “The country’s budget is still centered on Kathmandu. A Kathmandu-dominated economic system cannot ensure the country’s balanced development.”
After much pressure, the federal government registered a bill in the parliament aimed at forming a formal mechanism for effective coordination among the local, provincial and central governments. But there is no sense of urgency to endorse the bill.
The bill envisages a committee chaired by the prime minister to manage the relations between the three governments. Another coordination committee at the provincial level is envisaged to settle disputes between the provinces and the local bodies. The provincial assembly also has the right to adjudicate such disputes.
The constitution has given some exclusive rights to each of the federal, provincial and local governments. But the three also share a number of common rights; hence the need for effective coordination among them. The central government, however, does not appear sincere about passing laws on the interpretation of shared rights. The most reasonable explanation is that it does not want to share power.
Error of Commission
Even in matters where the provincial and local governments are free to make laws, the center has created various obstacles. The ongoing controversy over staff recruitment by the Public Service Commission is but an example of the Oli government dilly-dallying on the devolution of rights.
First, there has been a painful delay in forming provincial public service commissions, which are mandated to recruit civil servants for provincial and local bodies. Second, the bill on civil service has been pending in the federal parliament secretariat for several months. (A few months ago, APEX had published a comprehensive story on how staff recruitment will remain a controversial issue if provincial level arrangements are not immediately adopted.)
Similarly, there are complaints that the central government is not handing over big infrastructure projects to provincial and local governments. Moreover, the federal government continues to appoint and mobilize secondary school teachers by setting up separate units of the education ministry in the districts. A report prepared by the High Level Education Commission has not been made public, whose only purpose seems to be the concentration of all education-related rights at the center.
Oli is not only centralizing the powers of the three tiers of government, but also those of the three organs of the state, namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In February, the government came up with a bill on Work, Responsibility and Rights of National Security Council, which, if approved, vests the power to recommend army deployment in the prime minister without even holding a council meeting. The main opposition and the civil society have objected, but the government has shown no sign that it will change the bill’s content.
Similarly, a new bill to amend the National Human Rights Commission Act aims to curtail the rights of the constitutional body, which is mandated to independently monitor human rights violations in the country. The new bill has some provisions which make the NHRC accountable to the government. It also bars the NHRC from opening offices at the provincial level, which goes against constitutional provisions.
In sum, Prime Minister Oli is in the mood to exercise greater control, both by denying rights to provincial and local governments and by concentrating power in the executive branch.
| Areas of friction | Concurrent powers between federal and provincial governments |
|
• Appointment of senior staff to provincial and local governments • Appointment of CDOs by the federal government and lack of coordination in the security sector • Appointment by the federal government of senior police officers in the provinces • The federal government’s unilateral control of the forests, which actually fall under the common jurisdiction of federal and provincial governments • Appointment by the federal government of the Chief Administration Officers of the local governments • Exercise of authority by the federal government to appoint teachers • Delay in the formation of laws on the interpretation of joint rights between the three tiers of government • Centralization of financial resources |
• Cooperatives • Education, health and newspapers • Agriculture • Services such as electricity, water supply, irrigation • Service fees, penalties and royalty from natural resources • Forests, wildlife, birds, water uses, environment, ecology, and bio-diversity • Mines and minerals • Disaster management • Social security and poverty alleviation • Personal events, births, deaths, marriages, and statistics • Archaeology, ancient monuments, and museums • Management of landless squatters • Motor vehicle permits
Source: The Constitution of Nepal 2072 |
Messed up governance
It is incredible to see the all-powerful federal government of KP Oli stumble so badly—and on so many fronts. The government’s reluctance to devolve powers to the provincial and local levels has resulted in a lot of bad blood between the three tiers of government, not a healthy sign for an infant federal state. Even the chief ministers from the PM’s own party are rebelling against what they see as Singhadurbar’s attempts to increase its powers at their expense.
The Oli government had to beat a shameful retreat from the Guthi bill, prepared without consulting key stakeholders. The prime minister’s recent Europe trip also proved to be a disastrous folly, a perfect example of how not to ‘diversify’ away from India and China: unlike what the prime minister seems to believe, the number of countries he visits cannot be the yardstick of a successful diversification policy.
Economically, too, the country is in a shambles. There is a lopsided concentration of resources, including the annual budget, at the center. The expected economic growth has failed to materialize. The partial health of the economy is owing to the good monsoon of the past few years, and to the continuous inflow of remittances. Otherwise, the banks are over-leveraged and short of cash; a real estate bubble is building; the foreign account deficit is reaching a troubling level; and the Nepali rupee is vulnerable to the unpredictable global economy.
There are many other shortcomings of the Oli government. But he has also done some good. The landmark trade and transit protocol has been signed with China; relations with India have been normalized; countless regulations to implement federalism have been passed; and the separatist group of CK Raut has been brought into the national mainstream.
Yet the strong federal government could have done so much more. It is hobbled by corruption, intra-party feuds, and the prime minister’s self-serving working style. What’s more, this government with an overwhelming public mandate is a threat to liberal values. The eroding legitimacy of the two-third Oli government bodes ill for the health of the Nepali democracy.
