INDO-NEPAL RELATION : 'KATHMANDU’S CONSPIRACY THEORISTS'

[Kathmandu is almost entirely disconnected with the rest of the country in respect to attitudes towards India. I always encountered easy friendship and affection for India in the mountain valleys as in the Terai plains. A warm welcome would be extended to Indian representatives by Gorkha pensioners from the Indian army, from families of countless Nepali citizens earning their livelihood in every corner of India and from ordinary people who valued their kinship ties with their brethren across the border. A paradox, yes, but real nevertheless.] 

By Shyam Saran 

(The author)

It did not come as a surprise to me that Yubaraj Ghimire, a senior Nepali journalist, had located me last week in Kathmandu, playing conspiratorial politics, while I was in Thimphu attending an international conference (‘Ex-foreign secy Saran meets Prachanda’, IE, July 14). Had some trustworthy individuals not actually seen me in flesh and blood participating in the conference, including a respected Nepali delegate, my supposed shenanigans in Kathmandu would have been cast in stone. As it is, when friends in Nepal and India asked me if I was on a secret mission to Nepal, my denials were met with the not unreasonable response that of course I could not own up because it was all so hush-hush. I understand that the story has now spread in Nepal and, not for the first time, facts are a casualty.

As ambassador to Nepal from 2002 to 2004, I was struck by how a section of the Kathmandu political and civil society elite and media was convinced that the Indian government spent most of its waking hours figuring out how to subvert Nepal when the really big challenge was how to get enough attention for Nepal in New Delhi’s political and bureaucratic establishment. If there is one industry which is always flourishing in Nepal it is its fabled rumour mill, with its handlers vying with each other to produce the most imaginative and even bizarre stories about Indian activities in Nepal.

Kathmandu is almost entirely disconnected with the rest of the country in respect to attitudes towards India. I always encountered easy friendship and affection for India in the mountain valleys as in the Terai plains. A warm welcome would be extended to Indian representatives by Gorkha pensioners from the Indian army, from families of countless Nepali citizens earning their livelihood in every corner of India and from ordinary people who valued their kinship ties with their brethren across the border. A paradox, yes, but real nevertheless.

Perhaps one ought not be surprised that projecting India as a threat is often the most convenient way of diverting attention from the more difficult and complex economic and social challenges the country confronts. But in Nepal, such contrived hostility is deeply corrosive and denies its people the benefits that could flow from looking at India as an opportunity, not as a threat. What a contrast one finds in Bhutan, which has judiciously leveraged India’s compelling energy needs to develop its hydro-power sector, with income from the sale of power to India already making it one of the richest countries of our subcontinent. Nepal has a much larger hydro-power potential. The transmission lines required to evacuate power to the main consuming centres in India would be much shorter than from Bhutan. And yet we have the strange spectacle of India selling power to Nepal instead — the modern equivalent of carrying coal to Newcastle.

I am convinced that Nepal has the potential to emerge as by far the richest country in our region. Which developing country has the good fortune to be located at the crossroads of the two largest and fastest growing economies in Asia and the world, India and China? Which country has free access to India’s huge and expanding market? Instead of bemoaning that it is “India-locked”, why not consider Nepal to be “India-open”, as it undoubtedly is? Nepal’s market is not limited to its 22 million people and to its geographical frontiers. It has at its disposal a market of 22 million plus 1.2 billion consumers next door and a vast hinterland to use.

Nepal has the wherewithal to transform itself into our region’s tourist haven and a preferred centre for healthcare services and education, given its pleasant climate and its hospitable and talented people. There are tens of Mussoories and Shimlas waiting to be developed in the entire mid-hill areas of the country. If transport connectivity improved, several thousands of Indians in the heat struck plains of northern India would head to these cooler climes each summer, making Nepal an even more attractive tourist destination than it already is. Some healthcare companies have recognised Nepal’s advantages and set up several healthcare facilities, catering to the region. These could be multiplied several-fold. Nepal could host high-quality educational establishments catering to the subcontinent and to its diaspora. Nepali youngsters are flocking to schools in India instead. This is a waste of opportunities and mocks the long lines of young men and women queueing outside the Nepal foreign ministry each day for passports which will enable them to seek their livelihood in distant climes.

Nepal is a special country for India. Its people are considered to be our very own and treated with an easy familiarity. There may be voices raised against the influx of people from some other neighbouring countries, but the people of Nepal blend into the Indian landscape effortlessly. This enormous goodwill and affinity that Nepal enjoys in India is a unique and powerful asset, and it is the least used because of the conspiracy theories that devalue every step in furthering India-Nepal cooperation. Yes, India can and should do better in reaching out to Nepal. It should engage with the people of Nepal much more effectively than it does most of the time. Our Nepal policy should be forward-looking than frustrated by the minority of naysayers, however vocal they may be. Still, at the end of the day, it is for the people of Nepal to frame their own destiny. Those of us who harbour a great affection and regard for this extraordinary country and its friendly people hope that India will be seen as a benign partner, not as a perennial spoiler. And by the way, hard as it may be for some to believe, I was not in Kathmandu last week hatching yet another imagined conspiracy.

Shyam Saran is a former foreign secretary and has served as ambassador to Nepal. He is currently Chairman, RIS and Senior Fellow, CPR

@ The Indian Express

MOB JUSTICE AT THE MARUTI FACTORY

[India's strict labor laws may be, in part, to blame for some of the disputes. Corporate executives say that the laws force them to hire and train contract workers who feel no loyalty to them. These workers, on the other hand, complain that they are paid a fraction of what regular employees earn and receive few benefits.]

By Sruthi Gottipati

The human resources manager who died Wednesday night during a violent labor clash at a car factory near New Delhi didn't die an easy death.

His lower limbs were fractured at multiple points, said Dr. Deepak Mathur, who conducted the post-mortem examination, and the manager couldn't save himself from the fire that licked the building and the smoke that choked him.

"His body continued to burn after death," said Dr. Mathur, explaining why his charred body took time to be identified. "He was burned to the bone."

Although workplace killings are nothing new, Wednesday's struggle, which injured more than 70 workers and executives at the Maruti Suzuki car plant, appears to be the first time in the recent past where mob justice was used to settle a labor dispute.

Santanu Sarkar, a professor at XLRI School of Business and Human Resources, can cite examples of deadly labor violence in the past: Workers killed the head of human resources at an auto instruments company, Pricol, in 2009 and burned a steel plant executive to death last year.

And earlier this year, employees of a ceramics factory in Andhra Pradesh beat their company president to death with lead pipes after a violent wage dispute claimed the life of their union leader.

But the clash on Wednesday was different, Mr. Sarkar said.

"It wasn't one person but the entire building that was targeted. This was the first case in which there was a mob kind of attack," he said.

If media reports are correct, he said, it wasn't a group of 10 or 15 workers assaulting an individual, as has been the case in the past, but almost like a class of workers attacking another class - the management.

"It's so shocking that even after two days I keep reading the papers, but I'm not able to understand the motive," said Mr. Sarkar.

He said the only other cases he can think of that had similar violent labor disputes involved jute mills in 1970s West Bengal, which "reflect the Luddite era."

Although the immediate trigger of the violence on Wednesday was a scuffle between a supervisor and a worker, workers said that anger had been festering for days.

"The management said they would raise our salary in 10 days. But 12 to 13 days passed and we didn't see an increase," said one worker on Thursday, requesting anonymity to maintain his and his family's safety.

"In India, there are 45 laws at the national level and close to four times that at the level of state governments that monitor the functioning of labor markets," Kaushik Basu, a Cornell University professor, had written in a 2006 article.

"Flexibility in hiring and firing is not the only problem. India's complex web of legislation leads to a system of dispute resolution that is incredibly slow," Mr. Basu wrote.

Mr. Sarkar, the labor relations professor, said that developing a formal mechanism to address workers' grievances and encouraging responsible union behavior may help reduce such violent outbursts in the future.

He also pointed out the need for clear legislation on recognizing trade unions. At present, a company could choose not to recognize a trade union even if it has workers' support and a good track record.

 @ The New York Times