Friday, June 20, 2014

Political Dimension of Nepal’s Economic Diplomacy

"The new president of the World Bank, Al fasan was someone who would listen to the US Department of State before taking any decision. He cancelled the (Arun III) project at the instance of the State Department. India from the very beginning was not in favor of Arun III. India had requested the United States, which had the project cancelled in order to oblige the emerging regional power " (Adhikari 2064 BS: 296).
During the initial phases of its history following the national unification, Nepal vigorously defended its sovereign independence and identity. In doing so, it had often to repulse the attacks from the British East India Company as well a joint attack from Tibet and China and at times had to make compromises or gratify. Learning from various world ideologies, Nepal has been moving forward in the direction of change under the leadership of liberal democratic and communist parties even as the journey is marked with bumps and jolts. The continued process of transformation and transition is slower compared to the contemporary times and the expectations of our own countrymen.
The Nepali people have gained major achievements in terms of their democratic rights compared to what they had achieved 70 years ago. However, Nepal remains one of the least developed countries in the world and the people have been deprived of minimum economic rights. If democracy is the basis for economic prosperity, there is no alternative to bringing about economic transformation in order to further consolidating the democratic achievements.
Behind every positive or negative political changes in Nepal, the struggle waged by the Nepali people have not been enough and the impact of the country’s geostrategic location are somehow reflected on them, where it is the changes in February 1951 Delhi compromise, or the presence of the Indian leaders at political meetings at Chaksibari in Kathmandu or the 12-point “understanding” concluded in New Delhi in 2005. It can thus be easily assumed that Indian ruling and their capitalist classes have their interventionist presence behind Nepal’s instability and economic backwardness.
A report prepared by the Oxford University team found that 65 percent of Nepalis live in poverty. On the other hand, Nepal’s Genie coefficient is the highest in Asia. A large portion of productive labor force has migrated to participate in the international labor market. Domestic industrial productions have either declined or not been able to increase and yet the Malls and departmental stores are well stocked. This shows remittance sent home by migrant laborers are being spent on importing consumer goods. Export income can support the import of only petroleum goods and vehicles (Acharya 2067BS). The political leadership may blame political instability for the economic situation but they have no alternative to making the situation better. Failure to achieve economic growth and prosperity would only fuel social and industrial unrest. The country would be ultimately trapped into the vicious circle of declining investments, employment opportunities and productivity.
Exactly 100 years ago in the fiscal year 1909-10, Nepal’s total export was Rs. 32,855,162 while import was Rs. 16, 137,675. In other words, if the country imported goods worth Rs. 49, it exported goods worth Rs. 100. Nepal’s export was 51 percent bigger than imports. During 1910-11, exports import ratio was Rs. 100: 46.16 (Stiller 1999). Today, we imported goods worth Rs. 100 but exports are worth Rs. 16. As a result, trade deficit has increased to alarming level (Acharya 2067BS). Trade deficit has swelled near to Rs. 300 billion. More than 65 % of foreign trade of Nepal is with India.  The trade deficit with India is the biggest. The contribution of remittance to the gross domestic product has increased to 22 percent and yet the current accounts balance of payments remains vulnerable. Agriculture, on which 65 percent of population depends for livelihood, contributes only 31% to the GDP. These economic indicators suggest the need for a pro-active intervention in favor of a fundamental transformation in the present economic structure that has produced very little result.
The economic growth and prosperity in a number of countries depends on the attitudes of political leadership. Take for example our two neighboring countries. India’s first 40 years after independence were wasted in socialist slogans and underdevelopment. Following policy reforms introduced in the 1990s stressing on market and the private sector, India’s economic growth rate has increased to average 8 percent annualy. It is a different matter that income disparities have also led to the proliferation of the Naxalite movement. China, which marched from crisis to crisis during Mao’s socialism, has achieved economic growth rate that has surprised the world at a time when the political system and party structures remain intact. In the last 30 years, China’s economic growth has averaged 10 percent. Economic growth and opportunities, despite the resultant economic disparities, have pulled 400 million people out of poverty.
The country must determine the political course before it embarks on the task of transforming the economic situation. On the basis of the Jana Andolan of 2006, Nepal has become free from the clutches of monarchy and is marching towards democratic republic. However, it is yet to be decided whether it would be bourgeoisie republic with all the ingredients of liberal democracy or end in a compromise between the janabadis and udarbadis by the communist-dominated Constituent Assembly. Nepal can determine economic strategies only after this key issue is resolved. Once the political and economic courses have been determined, the foreign relations will be shaped accordingly. Economic policies are complimentary to political policy. Consensus among political parties is therefore critical for building common grounds and basis for sustainable national economy with the broad goals of faster economic growth (Pyakuryal 2067).
Economic diplomacy is never uni-dimensional. It is determined on the basis of interaction between national interests. It is also related to the relative strength and economic capacity of the countries. Being a small country, it may not be possible for Nepal to influence the policy of friendly countries but it is possible by adjusting to other’s national interest in order to defend our own national interest. Once the development strategy is in final shape, it would be easy for diplomats to foster relations with bilateral and multilateral donors and agencies to promote political and economic relations in the interest of the country. In such a situation, it hardly matters which party is in power. India’s economic policies have not changed despite the transfer of power from the rightist government of Bharatiya Janata Party under the leadership of Atal Behari Vajpayee to the present government led by the Congress I’s Manmohan Singh.  It is necessary for us to have a similar situation.
Each country is endowed with natural resources. Nepal has also a number of natural resources such as land area, forest resources, rivers, Himal, medicinal herbs and minerals. There is no paucity of cheap labor. The topographic and climatic variations offer tremendous opportunities for the development of tourism sector. All we need to do is identify areas of comparative advantages before embarking on the task of defining the goals and objectives of economic diplomacy.
If we decide to emulate the progress of neighboring countries, stable policy environment should be created in order to identify the areas of comparative advantage, mobilize foreign aid, explore direct (FDI) and indirect (Portfolio) private foreign investments and lobby in favor of Nepal’s national interests at regional and international forums. All policy matters related to these areas concern economic diplomacy.
 An attempt will be made in this paper to briefly touch on the history of economic diplomacy in Nepal, Political Dimension of contemporary international relation in the context of Nepal and the future prospects of economic diplomacy.
Review of Nepal’s Economic Diplomacy
King Mahindra Malla of Kathmandu (1561-74) visited Delhi to meet Moughal Emperor Akbar and requested him the right to issue currency in his own name. Having sought Akbar’s permission, King Mahindra began minting silver coins in Nepal. The coin became popular as Mahindra Malli. It was also during King Mahindra’s time that an agreement was reached with Tibetan rulers to circulat Nepali currency in Tibet. This could be an important context for economic diplomacy (Wang Chung 2005). Whether they are relevant in the present context may be debatable but these are examples of how former rulers had pursued foreign policy in a pragmatic manner. Such practice, which played a key role in promoting economic development during the medieval times, continued until King Prithvi Narayan Shah encircled the Kathmandu Valley which disrupted trade with Tibet.
After the unification the entire focus of the rulers were to prevent the British from access to both local markets and resources. The commercial treaty signed with the objective of confining unstable King Rana Bahadur to India became inoperative once he returned home (Acharya 2063BS). The Nepal Durbar failed to give continuity to Nepal’s age-old trade relations and minting with Tibet after the national unification. Nepal’s cautious approach to the British India had remained intact until Bir Shumsher ascended to power.
The worst compromise on national interest ever made by a Nepali ruler to remain in power was by Chandra Shumsher. By openly supporting Younghusband’s Tibet Mission during 1903-04 at the orders of Viceroy Lord Curzon, he broke Nepal’s traditional friendly ties with Tibet and China that was conducted independent of Nepal’s relations with other countries. Secondly, the Tibet Mission also led to the diversion of trade between Tibet and South Asia being undertaken through Kathmandu route to Sikkim-Kalingpong and Calcutta. Since then, Nepal has been deprived of economic and other benefits it had been receiving from the trans-Himalayan trade.
It was also during the time of Lord Curzon that the British India began officially treating Nepal as one of the states under its domain, thus dismissing Nepal’s independent recognition extended by the then British minister for Indian affairs (Stiller 1999). It was only after Chandra Shumsher’s unusual cooperation and gratifying the British during the World War I that Britain and Nepal signed a treaty in 1923 to recognize Nepal as an independent sovereign state. Chandra Shumsher also used diplomatic relations for economic benefits by sending a few Nepalis to study technical subjects in Japan. The British, in recognition to Nepal’s contributions of its citizens to the British Army to fight in the World Wars I and II, provided development assistance.
Nepal’s foreign policy began to be redefined around 1951. Nepal began to vigorously pursue her independent foreign policy following the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with the United States, China, Russia, and acquisition of the membership of the United Nations. The credit for using economic diplomacy for the first time goes to the first popularly elected government. According to B. P. Koirala (2055 BS):
I told Premier Chou En-lai that I have a plan to develop the country. We therefore need all the economic assistance from you. I probably mentioned to him that India was providing Rs. 180 million. He replied, “We would provide slightly less than that amount.” I asked him why  couldn’t he provide same level of assistance as India. He told me, “This may be good for neither you nor us. This may not be good for you because if we provide you higher level of assistance, India may be alarmed. It is not proper for us because it will give a message to the world that we would like to compete with India. We want to develop friendship with you. Therefore we would provide you less. Do not take this otherwise.” … He gave me such a nice advice.
This shows that Koirala was in a position to learn from Chou En-lai lessons for Nepal’s economic diplomacy and its major dimensions and dynamics. It also shows that economic assistance, loans and trade relations are integral part of domestic politics, security strategy and foreign relations. This aspect will be discussed later.
In India’s context, Koirala (2055 BS) has this to say:
I used to argue that Nepal should have unhindered access for its products in the Indian markets but will control Indian products and impose taxes to discourage their imports. This may sound to be unequal but was essential for our economic development.
Koirala’s experiences during his visits to China and India speak volumes on the political dimension of economic diplomacy. Just because a country wants, the other country would neither allow free promotion of trade nor provide development assistance or credits. The success of policies designed to expand bilateral trade opportunities, attract investment opportunities and economic development of the country depend on the domestic political situation and development strategies as well as the other country’s foreign and economic policies. Economic diplomacy is thus not just economics but also politics.
The Koirala Administration could not even complete 18 months in power. The first ever attempt by the Nepali state for promoting national interest instead of the personal political interest of the rulers was thus hijacked before it could produce results. For a long time since then, the entire focus of Nepal’s foreign policy was to expand diplomatic ties to provide legitimacy to the rule by absolute monarchs. Economic relations were never part of the strategy to promote economic growth and transformation.
The major focus of the Panchayat time diplomacy was to use China card in order to bargain with India some concessions and assistance and to minimize Indian pressure. However, Nepal was not able to resist Indian interference while exercising her sovereign rights. Some of the examples include the Indian presence at Kalapani, construction of a new barrage at Tanakpur, Indian obstructions in the construction of the road across Karnali river and the economic blockade unilaterally imposed by India after its refusal to extend the trade treaty twice, adding hardship on the small landlocked nation. It was also during the Panchayat regime that India had imposed unequal treaty on Nepal in 1965. In other words, King Mahendra had concluded a treaty against Nepal’s national interest to maintain his regime while keeping the people in dark about the treaty.
During the Cold War, Nepal was able to attract substantial amount of development assistance, loans and grants from super powers to serve their own vested interests. However, the most remarkable achievement during the period was the development of human resources as a result of the Colombo Plan offering scholarships to Nepalis to study technical subjects in India, Soviet Union, China and other countries and the contribution made to the development of economic infrastructure. Public corporations were established. The infrastructure built during those periods has made it possible for the country to make strides in transportation, hydroelectricity, health and education. These successes are more due to Nepal’s geostrategic location and the global strategic balance of power than the pursuit of economic diplomacy. This is the importance of Nepal’s geostrategic location.
The political changes in Nepal before 2006 are more or less the by-products of the global political developments. The change in 1951 was the results of the collapse of imperial powers and the emergence of democratic and communist regimes following the end of the World War II. The change in 1960 was possible largely as a result of the Indian security strategy and the American policy of supporting totalitarian regimes as a bulwark against communism. Nepal was a victim of regional strategy of India, which aspired to be a regional power, to turn it into a subordinate state. Nepal was under the influence of global ideological trends.
The Western capitalist powers felt reduced threats from the Soviet Union and its allies following the economic stagnation among Warsaw Pact countries in the 1980s. This was the time when the banks in the United States and Britain had substantive petro dollars in savings while the eastern European economies stagnated. As a result, the US under Ronald Reagan and Britain under Margaret Thatcher started restructuring their economies based on the principles of neo-liberalism. This was mainly designed to seek investment opportunities for the accumulated savings and encourage governments in the developing countries to emulate American political and economic values favorable to its national interests. Undoubtedly, it was part of the American security strategy.
The United Nations Security Council, World Bank and International Monetary Fund were used as instruments for this purpose. Both the World Bank, which is traditionally headed by an American national, and the International Monetary Fund, whose chief was appointed only at the consent of the European Union, have been used as strategic weapons for the expansion of Western interests. Nepal, which was receiving concessional loans until the policy changes, was forced to accept their harsh aid conditions. The sovereignty of several developing countries like Nepal has eroded as a result of the intervention by the global agencies in the name of globalization. Nepal has also been subject to similar harsher conditions from the Asian Development Bank, which has been under heavy Japanese influence. As a result of these pressures, foreign relations as well as domestic economic policies had also to be changed substantially. The conditions played a major role in the privatization of the public enterprises and total mess in the agricultural sector.
The democratization wave hit Nepal in 1990. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the US as an unchallenged super power left an impact on Nepal’s foreign and economic policies. The parliamentary government headed by the Nepali Congress had its foreign policy conducted on the basis of the Washington consensus. The role of the state shrank while that of the private sector increased. The spineless thinking to measure the government’s success in terms of the flow of aid and loan remained dominant.
Despite the dramatic policy changes, Nepal did not leap frog on diversification of export trade, identification of areas of comparative advantages and attraction of foreign direct investment in areas of long-term importance. The only notable progress during the period are the increase in tourist arrivals to 400,000 during the 1998 Tourism Year and the institutional trading of Nepali labor in Malaysia and the Gulf countries.
This was the period that marked a significant decline in the export of carpet, garment and pashmina. Neither the state nor the private sector could do anything to promote alternative exports. As a result, imports far outstripped exports. Some positive trends in trade with India since early 1990 also began to faded away, making Nepal ever more dangerously dependent on India. The Nepal government’s helplessness is reflected in the recent Indian decision to prevent Kantipur daily’s import of newsprint from a third country. Here is another example of India’s hegemonic policy:
India had also objected to the construction of the double-lane Bardibas-Sindhuli-Banepa road being built with assistance from the Japanese government. When Japan refused to oblige, India insisted on single lane road. … India prevented foreign investment in the Babai Irrigation Project. Why does India do so? When I visited Thailand’s capital Bangkok as a finance minister, I met my Thai opposite number. He then narrated me an incident: “India had objected to the regional economic cooperation grouping Burma, Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan. I fail to understand one thing. When it comes to Nepal’s development, India creates all the hurdles directly or indirectly? Why does India do so?” I just laughed and replied: This is because they want to keep us poor (Adhikari 2064 BS: 296).
Even after the transformation to a republic, Nepal has not been able to pursue an independent foreign policy. The then Prime minister Prachanda, who choose to visit China first to participate in the concluding ceremony of the Beijing Summer Olympics, has paid a heavy price. He was the first prime minister to have visited China before first visiting India. Several independent media houses have also been punished for not obliging India. Such political pressures are reflected in diplomacy in general and economic diplomacy in particular.
Nepal has initiated to institutionalize economic diplomacy only after the restoration of democracy in 1990. A high level task force was already set up in 1992 that recommended a number of structural reforms in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to operationalize economic diplomacy. Labor attaches have been appointed in a number of countries with a view to managing labor migrants, and orientations on economic diplomacy are provided to ambassadors and other staff assigned to diplomatic mission overseas. The lingering political instability has delayed progress on development strategy as well as structural reforms and human resources.
Political Dimension
Diplomacy is the power game. It is a game to control others, neutralize them or use them to one’s advantage. It is a new form of war. Although economic diplomacy is being understood as the mobilization of foreign policy for creating opportunities of economic growth and prosperity, Wars, imperialism, colonialism, international organizations, treaties and conventions are basically reflection of the same interest. Agreements and treaties are also influenced by balance of power. According to Adam Smith,
Exportation was encouraged by drawbacks, sometimes by bounties, sometimes by advantageous treaties of commerce with foreign states, and sometimes by the establishment of colonies in distant countries (http://www.econlib.org).
The first and second points referred to by Smith relate to enhancing competitiveness of goods while the last two points help develop friendly market. Taking advantage of external markets without the need for indentifying areas of comparative advantage is a far more pragmatic course.
According to Khanal (2059 BS), developed countries tend to mobilize unlimited resources for the promotion of their global interests which are preserved through technical, strategic, military, political and economic organizations at the national, regional and international levels. This shows that no assistance, loan and grant provided by multi-lateral, regional or international NGOs are free from strategic and political interests of major powers. This perspective has been formulated even more forcefully by Fukuyama, who argues for the use of American soft power for promoting the emergence of middle class attuned to the American value system and its global interest and the establishment of democratic regimes. He also describes the sponsored propaganda of vote rigging in Ukraine, Serbia and Georgia, mobilization of the popular revolt and the establishment of regimes suited to the American interests, and named several persons who led the civil society at the time (Fukuyama 2007: 136-8).
Fukuyama also refers to several world organizations like the United Nations, which are either incapable of taking quick decisions favoring American national interest or are dominated by countries whose interests clash with those of the United States and recommends creation of global organizations that endorses the American decisions or give legitimacy to American interventions.
According to Khanal, there is a general tendency in Nepal to link a particular policy to an individual. For example, China’s domestic modernization and the liberalization of her foreign policy is linked to the policy of Deng Xiaoping. This could be true to a certain extent. …However, we must understand that serious strategic and economic interests (rather than individuals) have governed the policy changes in China and the United States. What are involved are national interests of each countries involved, and the individuals are superfluous (Khanal 2059 BS). The perspectives of someone recognized as the architect of Nepal’s modern diplomacy indicates that national interests are at the core of foreign policy of a country.
The government has been providing a grant of Rs. 1 million to each of the village development committees. However, the Indian Embassy can provide lump sum Rs. 50 million to any VDC without even asking any agency of the Nepal government. A former member of the National Planning Commission told an interaction that once the Indian Embassy wrote a letter to the Nepal government, asking to raise the ceiling of amount it could provide to any one in Nepal from Rs. 30 million to Rs. 50 million. As required, the approval of the NPC was sought. The NPC formally discussed the proposal but rejected on the grounds that the loyalty of the party leaders or workers negotiating such assistance between the recipient and the Indian government would be towards the Indian government. However, the very next day the news by the official media said the Indian proposal has been accepted and approved. The major beneficiaries of such assistance have been the leaders and workers of all political parties.
It is true that Nepali bureaucrats, security officials, traders, businessmen and leaders and workers of the political parties thus favored by India have been invested by India. Even today, the sons or daughters of most Nepalese with high portfolio, including the Prime Minister and political leaders are studying in India under Indian scholarships. Most scholarships are provided at the recommendation of the political leaders. This is the spider web of Indian diplomacy, which is one of the several reasons why the growing trade deficit between Nepal and India has not been able to be narrowed down.
On the other hand, the legitimacy of any state power or government is measured in terms of the country’s economic prosperity and the opportunities available to the people. Most of the dictators in the third world countries had survived on the goodwill of superpowers in the post-colonial period when the world was bipolar led respectively by the United States and the Soviet Union. The demand for rights and prosperity of the people were suppressed with the help of the masters. This situation changed dramatically following the end of the Cold War in 1990s. The legitimacy of the regimes now depends on the popular support, thus the emphasis on economic development. But the tendency of world or regional powers has not been changed even after 1990 in the question of economic dominance. That has created political and social instability among the newly democracies like Thailand, Nepal, Pakistan and South Africa.
Economic policy of any country is no more a matter of independent choice. Global integration of the economies is the reality. Countries such as North Korea and to some extent Myanmar that have failed to march with global economy are sick and fragile. Independent policies without adjusting to the policies of the World Trade Organization, World Bank and International Monetary Fund are next to impossible. Those with power and money dominate such multilateral organizations.
The world economy is being managed on the basis of Washington consensus. However, the consensus has weakened gradually. As a consequence, efforts are being made for creating the Beijing Consensus as an alternative and make structural changes in the World Bank on the basis of the changing balance of power in order to enhance the roles of emerging powers such as China, Russia, India, South Africa and Brazil. Proposed Beijing Consensus has two important aspects. The first aspect is to end the dominance of dollar in the world market and create an alternative world currency. This is primarily aimed at reflecting the reduced economic influence of the United States and its developed capitalist allies. It takes into account a number of factors including the origin of the global economic meltdown in 2008 and the Chinese investment of US$150 billion in US bonds (Stiglitz 2010). The second aspect is the kind of challenge it poses to the US political value system on which its foreign policy is based (Subedi 2010).
Only recently, China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second largest economy. China is the emerging world power. Emerging powers like China and others exert pressures on the US dominated institutions to open up for democratic reforms. Until 10 years ago, the trade between China and India was to the tune of $1 billion. That was the time when it was said that Chinese goods had swamped India. Today the total volume of trade between the two countries has swelled to $50 billion, and the balance of trade is favorable to India. The growing trade would have impact on their relations. Nepal should take the advantage out of this flourishing trade at least as a transit country as the travel distance between India’s Siliguri and Delhi via Nepal is much shorter by hundreds of kilometers.
But Nepal has to focus its diplomacy to free itself from being playground of world powers. Recently at the joint meeting with presidents of all four Madhes-based political parties at a dinner reception, the visiting special envoy of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Shyam Saran told them that a Maoist-led government was not possible unless the peace process came to a conclusion and urged them to their role in the prime ministerial elections accordingly. One of the participants quoted Saran as saying, “Maoist-led government was not acceptable to India, which looks at Nepal as a peaceful democratic special neighboring country. India has fully understood that it would not remain unaffected by the political instability in Nepal” (Kantipur 2010: August 6). The report also said Saran urging the Madhes parties not to run after majority government but to back democratic values as this was a vital issue in the context of sensitive Madhes politics and the right to self-determination of the Nepali people.
On the other hand, Chinese Ambassador in interviews with various newspapers asserted that China would not remain a silent spectator in case there was foreign intervention in Nepal. It is a rather strong expression aimed at India. It shows that Nepal has to develop favorable strategy to survive in the changing context of global power relation.
The changing nature of the global balance of power will certainly leave an impact on Nepal. The tourism market dominated by the arrivals from European countries, United States and Japan so far will see growing impact from fresh arrivals from China and India. Our tourism policy must focus on these traditional but emerging markets. The Pashmina, carpet and garment export needs to be diversified to cater to the Chinese markets. In order to be able to do so, we must get out of the South Asian level of human resources and products (Pyakuryal 2067 BS). The country must get ready for the changes in the global economy in order to identify areas of advantage and make commensurate policy changes. It is clear that we may not move forward at the current pace and style.


Conclusion
Nepal for a long time during its modern times remained a British satellite state or neo-colony. It opened to the outside world only 60 years ago. India has been exerting pressure on the country. It has suffered from the conflicting strategic interest among India, China and the US. As a result of India’s hegemony, Nepal has not been able to formulate independent economic and foreign policies. Nearly a third of Nepal’s trade is with India. The exchange rate of the Nepali rupee is pegged to the Indian currency. Trade deficit with India has been growing. This has not led to the promotion of Nepal’s interest or prosperity.
Nepal is mired in poverty. The comprador ruling class thrives on rent seeking. Our main priority should be implementing independent economic policies for the development of the country, attracting foreign direct investment in industries and infrastructure, liberalizing policies in order to boost trade, providing better salary and working conditions for Nepali migrant workers goring overseas and making Nepal an attractive tourist destination are important considerations for promoting economic development. These are the areas where diplomatic cooperation and support are required. These are also the main attractions of Nepal’s economic diplomacy. Unfortunately, we have been the victims of our own political instability, policy confusion and wrong leadership attitudes.
Time has now come to build our own attitude. Only internal political stability helps promote such policy formulation. Human resources and structures come only after the policy is in place. We can learn lessons from our own experience and mobilize economic diplomacy for promoting Nepal’s prosperity. The political, diplomatic and intellectual class should not make any further delay in building conducive environment for promoting Nepal’s economic growth and prosperity.
(Paper Presented in a Seminar in Kathmandu, few yrs ago)

References
Acharya, Baburam. 2063 BS. Nepalko Samchipta Britanta. Kathmandu: Srikrishna Acharya.
Acharya, Keshav. 2067 BS. Mulyankan monthly, Vol 182, Asar.
Adhikari, Bharat Mohan. 2064 BS. Mero Jivan Yatra: Kehi Samjhana (My Journey: Some Memories, in Nepali). Kathmandu: ??
Fukuyama, Francis. 2007. After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads. London: Profile Books.
Kantipur daily, August 6, 2010.
Khanal, Yadunath. 2059 BS. Yadunath Khanal: Life and Ideas. Pulchok: Sajha Publications.
Koirala, B. P. 2055 BS. Atmabritanta. Patan: Jagadamba Prakashan.
Pyakuryal, Bishwambher. 2067 BS. Mulyankan. Asar 2067.
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2010. Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy. London: Penguin.
Stiller, Ludwig F. 1999. Nepal: Growth of a Nation. Kathmandu: Human Resources Development Center.
Subedi, Jhalak. 2067 BS. “Khula Bazarko Khulapatan”, Kantipur, Asar 26.
Wang, Chung. 2005. Nepalko Rastriya Surakchatmak Rananiti tatha Nepal-Chin  Sambandha. Kathmandu: China Study Center.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

बकिंहममा चिनियाँ प्रधानमन्त्री

चिनियाँ प्रधानमन्त्री ली ख छियाङ बेलायतको भ्रमणमा छन् । यसपटकको
चिनियाँ प्रधानमन्त्रीको भ्रमण टोलीमा २०० जना चिनियाँ व्यापारी या
व्यापारिक प्रतिष्ठानका उच्च अधिकारी सामेल छन् । अर्थात् यो दुनियाँकै
ठूलो प्रतिनिधि मण्डलमध्येको एउटा हो । यसअघि ब्रिटिस प्रधानमन्त्री
क्यामरुन गत डिसेम्बरमा चीन भ्रमणमा आउँदा झन्डै यत्रै आकारको प्रतिनिधि
मण्डल लिएर आएका थिए । चीन र बेलायतबीच प्रतिनिधि मण्डल आउनु–जानु,
कूटनीतिक भ्रमणहरूको आदान–प्रदान हुनु सामान्य कामकाजका रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ
। तर, इतिहासका केही सन्दर्भसँग भिडाएर हेर्दा भने यसपालिको चिनियाँ
भ्रमणका केही ऐतिहासिक महत्त्व र संकेत भेटिन्छन्, जसले आगामी शताब्दीको
विश्व शक्ति सन्तुलनको मानचित्र मात्र देखाउँदैन, बरु बितेका झन्डै दुई
सय वर्षमा विश्व पुँजीवादमा आएको विकास र परिवर्तनको झाँकी पनि देखिन्छ ।
चिनियाँ प्रधानमन्त्रीको भ्रमणको चर्चा उनलाई बेलायती राजप्रासाद बकिंहम
प्यालेसमा महारानी एलिजाबेथ द्वितीयाले गरेको स्वागतका सन्दर्भमा पनि
भएको छ । सामान्यतया समकक्षीहरू अर्थात् राज्य प्रमुखहरूसँग मात्र
महारानीले भेट्ने गर्छिन् । यसअघि उनले जर्मन चान्सलर एन्जेला मार्केललाई
मात्र आफ्नो प्रोटोकल मिचेर भेटेकी थिइन् । साप्ताहिक ‘टाइम’ले
जनाएअनुसार चिनियाँहरूले नै महारानीसँग भेट्न नमिल्ने भए भ्रमण नै रद्द
गर्ने धम्की दिएका थिए । तर, बेलायतीलाई चीनको आर्थिक लगानीको यति खाँचो
छ कि उनीहरू चिनियाँहरूलाई खुसी पार्न लालायित थिए । यसले आजभन्दा झन्डै
२२० वर्षअघि ब्रिटिस दूत म्याकार्टनीले चिनियाँ छिङ वंशीय शासकसँग भेट्न
खोज्दा व्यहोरेको हैरानीको सम्झना दिलाउँछ । हेनरी किसिन्जरका अनुसार
१७९४ मा चीन गएका ब्रिटिस दूत म्याकार्टनीलाई त्यहाँका महाराजसँग भेट्न
महिनाँै कुर्नुपरेको थियो । म्याकार्टनी राजाका सामु घुँडा टेकी निहुरेर
भुइँमा निधार राखेर ढोग गर्न लामो समयसम्म तयार भएनन् । जब उनी तयार भए,
तब उनको खातिरदारीमा राजा आफैँले प्यालामा रक्सी राखेर पिउन दिए र
सम्मानपूर्वक उनलाई फिर्ता पठाइयो । उनले पेकिंगमा दूतावास खोल्ने र
त्यहीँ बस्ने भनी गरेको अनुरोधलाई चिनियाँहरूले अस्वीकार गरी पठाइदिएका
थिए । त्यसपछि पनि बेलायतीहरूले चीनमा आधिकारिक रूपमा व्यापार गर्न र दुई
देशका बीच समान कूटनीतिक सम्बन्ध कायम राख्न गरेको प्रायस असफल भएको थियो
। किनभने चिनियाँहरू अरू राजालाई आफूसरह मान्दैनथे । आफैँलाई पृथ्वीको
केन्द्र र स्वर्गका राजाको प्रतिनिधि ठान्थे ।
सन् १८३९ मा अफिम युद्ध सुरु भयो । बेइजिङमा दूतावास खोल्न चिनियाँहरूले
नदिएपछि ब्रिटिसले थुप्रै बन्दरगाह सहरहरूमा आक्रमण गरे र अहिलेको हङकङ
जो गोङजाउको दक्षिणमा पर्ल रिभर डेल्टामा पर्छ, कब्जामा लिए । अर्थात्
चीनलाई विभाजित गरियो । हङकङ झन्डै १६० वर्षसम्म बेलायतको उपनिवेश रह्यो
। सन् १९९७ मा मात्र चीनले हङकङमाथिको सार्वभौमसत्ता उपयोग गर्न पाएको हो
। यसरी चीनमा प्रवेश गर्दा बेलायतले ऊसँग एउटा भूभाग खोसेर या चीनलाई
टुक्र्याएर कमजोर बनाएको थियो । त्यो घटनाको झन्डै १७५ वर्षपछि लन्डनमा
प्रधानमन्त्री लीले स्कटल्यान्डलाई बेलायतबाट अलग नहुन सुझाब दिए ।
स्कटिस जनताको फैसलाको समर्थन गरिने भन्दै लोकतान्त्रिक छनोटको समर्थन
पनि गरे । इतिहास उल्टिएको जस्तो चित्र देखाउने यो घटना बिल्कुल भिन्न
विश्व व्यवस्था निकट आउन लागेको संकेत हो ।
सन् १८२४ मा पहिलोपटक बेलायतले रेलवे लाइन बनाएर संसारलाई चकित पारेको
थियो । यातायातका क्षेत्रमा त्यो घटना एउटा ऐतिहासिक क्रान्तिकारी कदम
थियो । औद्योगिक क्रान्ति, विज्ञान र प्रविधिमा गरेको अद्वितीय सफलतासहित
आधुनिक बेलायतले समग्र दक्षिण एसिया, मलेसिया र अहिलेको सिंगापुरसमेतमा
कब्जा जमाउँदै चीनलाई पनि घेराउ गर्‍यो । उता चिनियाँ छिङ वंशीय राजा र
उनको दरबारलाई युरोपमा आएको फेरबदलको अत्तोपत्तो थिएन । आफैँलाई संसारको
केन्द्र मान्ने र युरोपीयनलाई बर्बर असभ्य जाति मान्ने परम्परा कायमै
राखेका उनीहरू बेलायतीहरूको फायरपावर देखेर तिलमिलाए । त्यतिवेलासम्म
सामन्तवादी अर्थतन्त्र, राजनीति र संस्कृतिमा उभिएको चीन विश्वको कुल
गार्हस्थ उत्पादनको झन्डै ३० प्रतिशत एक्लो चीनले नै उत्पादन गथ्र्यो,
आफैँमा आत्मनिर्भर थियो र एकप्रकारले पूरै बन्द समाजमा थियो । आधुनिक
पुँजीवादसँगको लडाइँमा चीन परास्त भयो, जसबाट तंग्रिन उसलाई झन्डै १५०
वर्षभन्दा बढी समय लाग्यो । अहिले चीन विश्वको दोस्रो ठूलो अर्थतन्त्र
भएको छ । यद्यपि यो अझै पनि मध्यम आयस्तर भएको र पूर्ण विकसित देशको
क्लबमा प्रवेश पाइनसकेको देश हो, आर्थिक असमनता अत्यन्त बढी छ,
जनसंख्यामा अझै पनि विश्वको नम्बर एक छ, तथा सैन्यशक्तिका दृष्टिले
रसियाभन्दा पनि पछाडि पर्छ । तर, उसको उदाउँदो छवि र अमेरिकाको स्थिर
हुँदो शक्तिका कारण चीनलाई फरक ढंगले हेर्न थालिएको छ । यस्तो स्थिति
आर्थिक रूपमा चीनले आर्जन गरेको शक्ति र सम्भावना आँकलनबाट उत्पन्न हुने
गरेको हो ।
क्यामरुन र लीको उपस्थितिमा दुई देशका सरकारबीच लन्डनमा तीव्रगतिको रेल
लाइन बनाउन चिनियाँ कम्पनीलाई दिनेसम्बन्धी हस्ताक्षर भएको छ । पहिलो रेल
लाइन बनाएर विश्वलाई चकित बनाउने बेलायतको लन्डनमा पछिल्लो पुस्ताको
तीव्र गतिको रेल कुदाउने प्रविधि, प्राविधिक र पुँजीसमेत लिएर चिनियाँ
कम्पनी प्रवेश गर्नेछन् । अहिले ७० अर्ब डलर वार्षिक कारोबार रहेको दुई
देशको बीचको व्यापार अर्को वर्ष नै १०० अर्ब पुर्‍याउने सहमति भएको छ ।
वित्तीय पुँजीवादको दोस्रो विश्व केन्द्र मानिने लन्डन पुँजीबजारमा
चिनियाँँ मुद्रा युआन र चिनियाँ धितोपत्र कारोबार गर्ने गरी एउटा चिनियाँ
बैंकलाई आफ्नो कार्यालय स्थापना गर्न दिन बेलायत राजी भएको छ । अब
चीनबाहिर हङकङपछि युआनको ठूलो कारोबार केन्द्र लन्डन हुनेछ । यो यस्तो
कदम हो, जसले चिनियाँ मुद्रालाई विश्व मुद्रा बजारमा परिवत्र्य बनाउन
सहयोग हुनेछ । बिस्तारै अर्थतन्त्र र विश्व व्यापारमा चीनको हिस्सा बढ्दै
जाँदा युआन पनि पौन्ड, डलर या युरो जस्तै कारोबारको माध्यमका रूपमा विकास
हुनेछ ।
चिनियाँहरूका लागि भिसा नीति खुकुलो बनाउने भनी भ्रमणको पूर्वसन्ध्यामा
बेलायतले गरेको घोषणा धनी चिनियाँलाई बेलायतमा लगानीका लागि सहज ढंगले
आमन्त्रण गर्ने उपायका रूपमा बेलायतले लिएको मानिएको छ । यसैगरी खनिज तेल
कारोबार गर्ने बेलायती कम्पनी बिपी र चिनियाँ सरकारी तेल कम्पनी सिनुकका
बीचमा तेल आपूर्तिसम्बन्धी १८ अर्ब डलरबराबरको सम्झौता पनि भएको छ । यी
कुराले गर्ने संकेत हो, विश्वको अर्थराजनीतिक मानचित्र बदलिँदै गएको छ ।
पहिले पश्चिमाहरू बाइबल र हतियार लिएर तेस्रो विश्वका देशलाई असभ्य र
जंगली भन्दै कब्जा गर्न आउँथे । प्रविधि, विज्ञान र पुँजीमा उनीहरूको
नियन्त्रण थियो । विश्व पुँजीवाद साम्राज्यवादमा फड्को मारेको जगजगीका
वेला उपनिवेश बनाउन र स्रोत तथा बजारमा कब्जा जमाउन तेस्रो विश्वका
देशमाथि युद्ध थोपरियो, कागती निचोर्दा झैँ तिनलाई निचोरेर स्रोतहरूको
दोहन गरियो । परिणामत: उपनिवेशहरू थला परे, उपनिवेशकारीहरू मोटाए ।
उपनिवेशका जनताले आफ्नो स्रोत र सार्वभौमसत्तामाथि अधिकारको पुनस्र्थापना
गर्नैका लागि सयौँ वर्ष लडाइँ लड्नुपर्‍यो । त्यही युरोपेली पुँजीवाद
विकासको खास चरणमा पुगेको संकेत यो भ्रमणले दिएको छ । पहिले बेलायत जुन
शक्ति र धम्कीका साथ चीनमा प्रवेश गरेको थियो, त्यो धम्की नभए पनि
चिनियाँसँग राज्य पुँजीवादको अभ्यास गर्दा जम्मा भएको अथाह पुँजी छ ।
विश्वका पुँजीवादी शक्तिकेन्द्र मन्दीको संकटले थला परेका वेला पनि
चिनियाँहरू आर्थिक संकटमा परेनन्, बरु अरूलाई उद्धार गरिदिने भन्दै पोको
बोकेर युरोपतिर जाने हैसियतमा पुगे । अहिले ली त्यही पोको बोकेर बेलायत र
स्पेनको भ्रमणमा छन् । यसले क्रमश: विश्वको शक्ति सन्तुलन बदलिएको
प्रमाणित गर्छ । १५० वर्षअघि साम्राज्यवादले छेउमा मिल्काएको चिनियाँ
सियो अहिले शक्तिको माझैमा पुगेको छ । यो बदलिँदो चित्रलाई लीको भ्रमणले
थप पुष्टि गरेको छ ।

Friday, June 13, 2014

कस्ता किसान कस्तो भूमि–व्यवस्था ?

जुन ११ को अनलाइन संस्करणमा टाइम्स अफ इन्डियाको एउटा समाचारको शीर्षक छ,
‘दिल्लीमा भएको एउटा गोप्य बैठकमा भारतले चीनलाई भूमिसम्बन्धी कानुन
पढायो ।’ समाचारमा भनिएको छ ‘चीनमा हुने भूमिको निजीकरणमा भारतले
महत्त्वपूर्ण भूमिका खेलिरहेको हुनसक्छ । गोप्य राखिएको एउटा बैठकमा,
कानुनी मामिलासम्बन्धी विभागका उपमन्त्रीको नेतृत्वमा आएको उच्चस्तरीय
चिनियाँ प्रतिनिधिमण्डलले भारतीय कानुन निर्माण विभागका उच्च अधिकारीसँग
चीनमा ‘सहर र गाउँ दुवै क्षेत्रका जनतालाई भूमिमाथि निजी स्वामित्व
प्रदान गर्ने’सम्बन्धी एउटा प्रभावकारी ऐन निर्माणबारे बुझेका थिए ।
‘भूमिसम्बन्धी झगडाको व्यवस्थापन, क्षतिपूर्ति, घरको स्वामित्वमाथि
कानुनी र नीतिगत संरक्षण तथा त्यसको पुस्तान्तरण’लगायत विषयमा छलफल भएको
थियो ।’
यो समाचारले आफैँमा ठूलो महत्त्व राख्छ । चिनियाँ कम्युनिस्ट पार्टीको
नेतृत्वमा भएको क्रान्तिपछि सन् १९४९ मा जनगणतन्त्र घोषणा भयो र एक वर्ष
नपुग्दै भूमिसुधारसम्बन्धी कानुन जारी भयो । मूख्यत: सामन्ती जामिनदारी
प्रथा रहेको चीनमा भूमिसुधारको अर्थ जमिनदारको जमिन खोसेर किसानलाई वितरण
गर्नु थियो । सन् १९५८ पछि ग्रेट लिप फरवार्डको अवधि आयो, जसमा
कम्युनहरूको निर्माणलाई तीव्र गति दिइयो । भूमिमाथिको निजी स्वामित्वको
अन्त्य भूमिसुधारको मूल मन्त्र भयो । सहरमा कारखाना र व्यापार व्यवसायमा
पनि निजी स्वामित्वको अन्त्य गरियो । तर, १० वर्षको अनुभवबाटै कम्युन
प्रणाली या सामूहिक खेतीप्रणालीले काम नगरेको निष्कर्ष निकालियो । सन्
१९७८ को सुधार थालिनुअघि नै सिचुवान प्रान्तका तत्कालीन पार्टी प्रमुख
चाउ च याङ (जो पछि प्रधानमन्त्री र पार्टी महासचिव भए तथा उदारवादी
सुधारको वकालत गरेको आरोपमा तियनआनमान चोकको काण्डपछि कारबाहीमा परे) ले
जमिनका स–साना प्लट किसान परिवारलाई कमाउन दिने, त्यसबापत राज्यलाई
तिर्नुपर्ने अंश बुझाएपछि बचेको उत्पादन किसानले आफूखुसी उपभोग या
बेचबिखन गर्न पाउने नीति लागू गरेका थिए । पछि उनको उक्त नीतिलाई
व्यक्तिगत उत्तरदायित्व प्रणाली भनियो र झन्डै देशैभरि लागू गरियो । सन्
१९९० पुग्दा नपुग्दा कम्युन खारेज भए र खेतीपातीमा किसान पारिवारिक रूपमा
सामेल भए । तर, जमिनमाथिको स्वामित्व भने समुदायको या काउन्टी या
प्रिफेक्चरहरूको नै रह्यो । जब आधुनिक बिल्डर्सहरू र पुँजीपतिहरूलाई
सहरको जमिनले पुग्न छोड्यो, तिनीहरू गाउँ पस्ने र खेतिपातीयोग्य जमिन
पार्टी र सरकारका अधिकारीलाई घुस दिएर तथा किसानलाई गुन्डा लगाई लघारेर
कब्जा गर्न थाले । अर्कातिर सुदूर ग्रमीण इलाकामा रहेका किसान जमिनको
ठेक्का लिएपछि त्यसलाई छोड्न नपाउने तर उनीहरू चाहिँ काम गर्न सहर झर्ने
र यतै बस्ने प्रवृत्ति बढ्दा खेतीयोग्य जमिनको प्रयोगमा समस्या देखापर्न
थाल्यो । जमिन निजी नहुँदा पुँजीवादी उत्पादन प्रणालीसँग तालमेल मिलाउन
कठिन पर्‍यो । सम्भवत: यसले ‘उत्पादक शक्तिको विकास’लाई अवरुद्ध पारेको
व्याख्या गर्दै चिनियाँ नेताको अहिलेको पुस्ताले माओले सामूहिकीकरण गरेको
जमिनको निजीकरण गर्ने कानुनी तथा नीतिगत उपाय खोज्न थालेका छन् । वर्तमान
पार्टी महासचिव सि जिन पिङ र प्रधानमन्त्री लि छियाङको पुस्ताका नयाँ
सुधारका नीतिमध्ये भूमिसुधार पनि एउटा हुन पुगेको छ । सम्भवत: यसलाई लागू
गरेपछि जनगणतन्त्र चीनको समाजवादले एक चक्र पूरा गर्नेछ । सन् १९२२ मा
लेनिनले सोभियत संघ स्थपनाको ४ वर्षमा नै नयाँ आर्थिक नीतिमार्फत बजारको
भूमिकालाई स्थान दिन खोजेका थिए, चिनियाँले समाजवाद स्थापनाको २० वर्षमा
आफ्नो बाटो मोडेका थिए । शास्त्रीय कम्युनिस्ट साहित्यमा यससम्बन्धी
विवाद जारी रहनेछन् । तर, हामीले भने यसबाट अहिले नै सिक्नुपर्ने पाठ
धेरै छन् । हामीकहाँ भूमिको व्यवस्थापन कसरी गर्ने, किसानहरूको समस्या
कसरी हल गर्ने, भूउपयोग तथा व्यवस्थापनका सैद्धान्तिक मापदण्ड के बनाउने
भनेर बहस भइरहेका वेला नृवंंशशास्त्री सुरेश ढकाल (पिएचडी) को पुस्तक
बजारमा आएको छ : ल्यान्ड एन्ड एग्रारियन क्वइसन्स्, एस्सेज अन ल्यान्ड
टिनर, एग्रारियन रिलेसन्स् एन्ड पिजान्ट मुभमेन्टस् इन नेपाल ।
यतिवेला नेपाल नयाँ संविधान निर्माणको चरणमा छ । संविधानसभा भूमि,
सम्पत्तिमाथिको निजी स्वामित्व र समावेशी विकासका आधारभूत सिद्धान्तमाथि
बहस गर्दै छ । त्यही संविधानसभामा नेपालमा केही जनजातीय समूहका सन्दर्भमा
परम्परागत थातथलोमाथिको दाबीसमेत प्रस्तुत गरिएको छ । उता जमिनमाथिको
स्वामित्वको प्रश्न अर्थात् जसले जोतभोग गर्छ, जमिनको मालिक पनि उही
हुनुपर्छ भनेर आठ वर्षअघिसम्म सशस्त्र विद्रोहमा किसानलाई सामेल गराएको
एमाओवादी पनि त्यही संविधानसभामा छ । आफ्नो स्थापना कालमा सामन्तवादका
विपक्षमा नारा दिने नेपाली कांग्रेस र जमिन जोत्नेको भन्ने नारा दिने
एमालेलगायत वामपन्थी पनि संविधानसभामा उपस्थित छन् । नवउदारवादको जगजगी
बढेका वेला निजी सम्पत्तिमाथि अनुलंघनीय अधिकारको पक्षपोषण गर्ने
विचारधाराको बहुमत रहेको संविधानसभाले भूमिसम्बन्धमा गर्ने व्यवस्था
अहिले प्रचलित मूल्य–प्रणालीभन्दा भिन्न गर्ने कमै आसा गर्न सकिन्छ । तर,
संविधानसभामा जेजस्तो उपस्थिति भएपनि र त्यसले भूमिको प्रश्नलाई हल गरे
या नगरे पनि नेपालको अहिलेको अर्थ राजनीतिक परिदृश्यमा भूमिसँग किसानको
सम्बन्धलाई पुन: परिभाषित नगरी आर्थिक विकासलाई गति दिन सम्भव छैन । यो
कुरालाई सुरेश ढकालको पुस्तकले पनि प्रस्टैसँग व्यक्त गर्न खोजेको छ ।
पुस्तकमा सिकारी युगबाट कृषि युगमा प्रवेशका ऐतिहासिक प्रक्रिया, नेपालको
अरुण उपत्यकामा प्रचलित खोरिया प्रथा, नेपालमा भूमि सम्बन्धको वर्तमान
अवस्था, कमैया व्यवस्था, बँधुवा कृषि मजदुरका रूपमा हरुवाका विषय
समेटिएका किसान, कृषि र भूमि सम्बन्धका विषयमा अनुसन्धानमूलक लेख छन् ।
यसैगरी छिन्ताङका किसानको आन्दोलन, बर्दियामा भएको कनरा आन्दोलन
(किसानहरूले, खासगरी थारूहरूले जमिनमाथि अधिकारको विषयलाई लिएर गरेको
आन्दोलन) जस्ता शीर्षकमार्फत नेपालमा किसान आन्दोलनको परम्परामाथि पनि
पुस्तकले चियाएको छ । पुस्तकमा समेटिएका आठवटा निबन्धमध्ये आठौँले
भक्तपुरमा ०२१ सालको भूमिसुधार कार्यक्रम लागू गर्ने क्रममा राजनीतिक
दलहरू (मुख्यत: नारायाणमान बिजुक्छेको नेतृत्व रहेको समूह) ले गरेको
हस्तक्षेपले किसानलाई कसरी परिवर्तन गर्‍यो भन्नेबारेको खोजमूलक लेख छ,
जसले एउटा केस स्टडीका रूपमा नेपालको किसान आन्दोलन र भूमि व्यवस्थाका
सम्बन्धमा अध्ययन गर्नेका लागि एउटा खजाना दिन खोजेको छ । पुस्तकमा
प्रकाशित सूचनालाई आधार बनाउने हो भने नेपालको भूमि सम्बन्धमा निस्कने
निष्कर्षहरू यस्ता हुन्छन् : क) भूमिको असमान वितरण छ । ख) नेपालको
इतिहासमा भूमि अधिकारको विषयलाई लिएर लामो समयदेखि किसान र जमिनदार या
किसान र राज्यबीच संघर्ष चलिआएको छ । ग) भूमिको वितरणमा जातिगत विभेद
कायम छ । घ) २२ प्रतिशतभन्दा बढी किसान परिवारसँग आफ्नो जमिन छैन । ङ) ५०
प्रतिशतजति किसानसँग ०.५ हेक्टरभन्दा कम जमिन छ । च) गुठी प्रथाजस्ता
परम्पराका कारण किसान जमिनदारले जस्तै सरकार या मठमन्दिरको शोषणमा परेका
छन् । अध्ययनअनुसार नेपालमा गरिब र भूमिहीन किसानले कुल किसान परिवारको
झन्डै ७० प्रतिशत ओगट्छन् । अर्थात् नेपालको ३१ प्रतिशतजति राष्ट्रिय आय
र ६६ प्रतिशत रोजगारी दिने कृषि क्षेत्रमा ठूलो जनसंख्या प्रचलित भूमि
व्यवस्थाद्वारा पीडित छ ।
यो चित्रलाई आधार बनाउने हो भने नेपालमा भूमि सम्बन्ध नबदलीकन कृषिमा
संरचनागत परिवर्तन गर्न सम्भव छैन । परम्परागत जमिन वितरणको अहिलेको
अवस्थामा हस्तक्षेप गरी उत्पादनशील काममा लगाउने भूमि या कृषि क्षेत्रमा
अनुपस्थित जमिनदारी प्रथाको समप्तिसँगै कृषिमा पुनर्लगानीको सुनिश्चितता
नगर्ने हो भने कृषि क्षेत्रको अनुत्पादकत्वले उत्पन्न गरेको समस्याबाट
पार पाउन सकिन्न्न । यस सेरोफेरोमा चीनको पछिल्लो बहस र तयारीले के
सन्देश दिन्छ ? नेपालमा भुमिसुधारको मुख्य मुद्दा र किसान आन्दोलन मूलत:
वामपन्थी या कम्युनिस्टहरूले उठाउने गरेका हुन् । अहिले संविधानसभामा
रहेका झन्डै ५० प्रतिशत कम्युनिस्ट नाम धारण गरेका समूहका सदस्य छन् ।
तिनले भूमि सम्बन्धमा नवउदारवादी दृष्टिकोणभन्दा के भिन्न मत अगाडि
सार्ने हो ? या सार्न चाहँदै छन् ? पछिल्लो समय देशमा पुँजीवादी उत्पादन
प्रणाली अर्थतन्त्रको मूल चरित्र बनेको ठोकुवा गरिएको छ । खासगरी एमाले र
एमाओवादीले गरेको यो ठोकुवापछि सानो जोत आकारको भए पनि या स–साना
टुक्राको स्वामित्व पाएको भए पनि किसान अब या त उत्पादनका साधनको मालिक
भयो, या कृषि मजदुर । अहिलेको किसानको मुख्य अन्तर्विरोध उत्पादनको सानो
आकार, उत्पादकत्व वृद्धिका लागि सरकारी सहयोग र पुनर्लगानीका अवसरको कमी,
बजारसँगको पहुँच नहुनु तथा श्रमको सीमान्त उत्पादकत्व एकदम कम हुनु हो
भनेर मान्ने हो भने त्यसको समाधान के गरेर खोज्ने हो ? यहीँनेर नेपालको
वर्गचरित्रको चित्रण पनि गर्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । गाउँमा १० आठ रोपनी पाखो र
खेत भएको, कृषि उत्पादनले वर्ष दिन खान नपुग्ने किसान परिवारको युवक
विश्व पुँजीवादी बजारमा छिरेर सबैभन्दा ठगिएको दु:खी मजदुर बन्छ, जहाँ
मालिकसँग उसको सम्बन्ध सीमान्त मजदुर र राज्यसंरक्षित शक्तिशाली
पुँजीपतिका विचको सम्बन्धका रूपमा कायम हुन्छ । यता ऊ घरमा फर्केपछि केही
समय ज्यालादारी मजदुर लगाएर आफ्नो खेती कमाउँछ, आफू र परिवार पनि त्यसमा
काम गर्छन् र उत्पादनमा संलग्न रहन्छन् । यो एउटा यस्तो विशाल भ्रम बन्छ
कि उक्त मजदुरले घरमा फर्केपछि आफूलाई मजदुरका रूपमा होइन, स्वतन्त्र
किसानका रूपमा लिन्छ । चीन, भारत र विकासोन्मुख मुलुकका धेरैजसो देशका
गाउँले किसानले यही नियति व्यहोरिरहेका छन्, जसले किसानको भूमिसँगको
सम्बन्धमा रहेका अन्तर्विरोधलाई धेरै हदसम्म छोपछाप पारिदिन्छन् । यसले
विशाल ग्रामीण क्षेत्रमा फैलिएका किसान आफ्नो जायजेथाले खान बाँच्न नसकेर
लखेटिनुपर्ने सीमान्तकृत पुँजीवादी विकासको चपेटामा परिरहेकोतर्फ पनि
संकेत गर्छ, जसको समाधान पुँजीवादभित्रै खोज्ने बाध्यता छ । अब कृषिमा
लाग्नेहरूले बाँच्न पुग्ने र काम पनि पुग्ने जमिन पाउने अवस्था, त्यसैमा
पुनर्लगानी गरेपछि भविष्य सप्रिन्छ भन्ने निश्चितता र त्यसका लागि आधुनिक
प्रविधि, सीप र बजार सम्बन्धी ज्ञानमा पहुँच किसानको मूल समस्या हो ।
यसले पनि अहिलेको भूमि वितरण प्रणालीलाई भत्काउने माग गर्छ ।
पुनर्वितरणको माग गर्छ । निजी पुँजीलाई अनुलंघनीय बनाउने तर भूमिको
उत्पादकत्व बढाउँदै किसानलाई न्याय पनि दिने एकैपटक असम्भव छ भन्नेतिर
पनि यो अध्ययनले संकेत गरेको देखिन्छ ।
चीनका अनुभवले भन्छन्, हाम्रो भूमिसुधारले सामूहिकीकरणको बाटो लिने दिन
गए । नेपालको अनुभवले भन्छ, अहिलेको भूमि व्यवस्थामा पर्याप्त हस्तक्षेप
नगर्ने हो भने कृषि क्षेत्रको योगदान घट्ने तर त्यसबाट निस्कने अतिरिक्त
श्रमलाई दोहन गर्ने आधुनिक क्षेत्रको विकास नहुँदा किसान निरन्तर घाटामा
परिरहने अवस्थाको अन्त्य हुँदैन । किसानका बीच भूमिको न्यायिक वितरण,
खाद्य सुरक्षा, रोजगारीको सुरक्षा, वातावरणीय सन्तुलनसमेतलाई सँगसँगै
गाँसेर एकीकृत भूमिनीति नबनाउने हो भने चाहिँ हामीले राजनीतिक स्थिरता
पनि कायम गर्न सक्नेछैनौँ अर्थात् नयाँ–नयाँ विद्रोहका लागि बाँझो जग्गा
छाडिरहिनेछ 
 
 
6/12/14