Jamarkattel Bhauju Arrives in Canada: A Short Story

Note: Some readers may find this story politically incorrect and out of taste. This story is intented to be a humor and written with no intention of offense to anyone. If political incorrectness offends you, please do not read further.
 

By Ajay Pradhan | April 14, 2009

I can’t believe it’s already Nepali New Year today. Happy New Year. It seemed like only yesterday that she arrived in Vancouver, Canada, but it had already been three months since she left Nepal. Her name was Jamuna Jamarkattel. She came from Dhading Besi, the district headquarters of Dhading District in Nepal. She was 36 years old, married with three children. Her husband’s name was Ghanshyam Krishna who was 47 years old. Jamuna was Ghanshyam’s second wife. Except for his close circle of friends and family, nobody knew what happened to his first wife; he would rather not tell anyone about her. Their children were Hari, 11, Sushma, 8, and Leonardo, 5. Why the little son’s name was Leo was in itself an interesting little story. I’ll tell you about that a little later.

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention my name. I’m Rohit and when people ask me my name, I tell them with style, “I’m Bhattarai … Rohit Bhattarai.” You see, just like in the Bond movies. But let’s not get too much into that; this story is not about me, this story is about the Jamarkattels, especially Jamuna Jamarkattel. In Vancouver, all Nepalis called her Jamarkattel Bhauju. She didn’t like it too much.

Three weeks after her arrival in Canada with three children and a henpecked husband in tow, one lazy afternoon she changed their name. Hari became Harry and Sushma got a new name, Susan. Little Leo stayed Leo. Jamuna didn’t have to change the little one’s name; he already had a Western name. Lucky dude. After she was done renaming their children, at least informally, she decided on her own name. She thought for quite a while but an appropriate name didn’t come to her mind. She wanted to change her name Jamuna to a short and simple English name.

After thinking for about 15 minutes, she decided to call herself Jimmy. She knew Jimmy was an English name and it sounded like a nice name to her. But Harry, her older boy, quickly cautioned her, “Muwa, I think that is a boy’s name. The boy from the next door that I play with, his name is Jimmy.” No sooner did Harry call her Muwa, she told him, “Call me Mommy or Mom, not Muwa, OK? Here in Canada, we have to be like Canadians, right? This is not Dhading, right Chhora? Oops, I mean, son.”

After thinking further for a long part of the hour and failing to come up with a nice, appropriate English name, she said to her son, “Harry, go get me a newspaper or magazine from Sally Aunty upstairs. Tell her I asked, OK?” Sally was their Punjabi landlady, whose real name was Salvinder Kaur Dhaliwal. The Jamarkattels had rented a two-bedroom basement suite in the Dhaliwal residence in Newton area of Surrey.

Sally was the one who instigated Jamarkattel Bhauju to anglicize their name. “Look Jamna Ben, if you don’t get English name na, you won’t get a job, right?” Sally weighed in. Of course, Sally would know; she knew everything. After all, she came to Canada from Patiala, Punjab 12 years ago. The entire Dhaliwal family had English names. Sally’s husband’s name was Dave, for Devinder Singh Dhaliwal. Dave and Sally had two children of their own. Their son Narinder was known by his English name, Ned. I didn’t know Ned was an English name, but what do I know? I came to Canada only two years ago myself, to study at Simon Fraser University. And I’m not even a landed immigrant here, you see. I’m merely a student and as clueless as a paper doll.

Oh, sorry, I digress. What were we talking about? Oh, yeah, the Dhaliwals. OK, the Dhaliwals also had a daughter and her name was Charlene. She didn’t have a Punjabi name because she was born in Canada. Now I don’t understand why the Punjabis had to get an English name that’s at least in some little way a derivative of their original Punjabi name, like Dave for Devinder, Ned for Narinder, Robby for Ravinder, Sally for Salvinder, and so on. It makes you feel they want to hang on to their original name and are kind of uncomfortable making a clean break from it. As a result, they come up with innovative English names like Ned. A little too innovative for my taste, to be honest. That’s none of my business, but I mean, wouldn’t it just be easier to get straight English names like Michael, William, Robert, Peter, Thomas like most Chinese immigrants in Canada do? Like Michael Chang, William Cheng, Robert Chung, Peter Chow, Thomas Chiu. Anyway, let’s get back to our story of the Jamarkattels.

Where were we again? Oh, yeah, Jamarkattel Bhauju had sent her son to fetch a magazine from the landlady upstairs. Two minutes after browsing the pages of a three-year old edition of the Cosmopolitan magazine Harry brought from Sally Dhaliwal upstairs, Jamarkattel Bhauju found her new name, Jenny. As soon as she settled on that name, she felt a great sense of relief with the new-found identity. She even thought about changing her surname to something more pronounceable for the local khaires, like Jenny Jamar Cotel or, even better, just Jenny Cotel or something like that. But she wasn’t too sure if that would not cause some legal problem for the family. So, she quietly decided to keep the family name.

From that day on, she would introduce herself to anyone she met, “I am Jenny Jamarkattel; what is your good name?” Whenever the Non-Resident Nepalis living in Canada called her Jamarkattel Bhauju, she never failed to remind them to call her Jenny Bhauju or better still, simply Jenny. But the moniker “Jamarkattel Bhauju” stuck to her like Velcro.

Jenny, Harry, Susan, and Leo Jamarkattel. The only one in the Jamarkattel family left to get an English name was Ghanshyam Krishna Jamarkattel, the henpecked husband of Jenny Jamarkattel. When she made rapid decision to anglicize their name, Ghanshyam Dai was not home. But she chose an English name for him anyway. He had gone out to attend a job search seminar at one of the job search agencies in Surrey, funded by the federal government department, the Human Resources Development Canada or simply HRDC.

Dave had told him a few days ago to forget about the job search seminar and just go get a security guard training. “Ghanshyam Bhai, tushi escurty guard ka teraining le lo, OK? Yeh seminar weminar se kuchh banta nai, right?” Just go get security guard training; these useless seminars won’t do you any good, Dave told him. Well, now you see where Jamarkattel Bhauju got the habit of adding the words “OK” and “right” at the end of every other sentence.

Ghanshyam Jamarkattel was disheartened by Dave’s suggestion about the security guard training. In Dhading, he was a school teacher and assistant headmaster. No way was he going to become a security guard, he thought to himself, but didn’t say anything to Dave.

In the evening when Ghanshyam Dai came home from the job search seminar, Jamarkattel Bhauju quizzed her husband, “Kris, why are you late? You know we have to go to New Year’s dinner party at Chaturvedi Daju’s house tonight, right?”

Ghanshyam Dai was confused, “Haina ke bhanchhau, kollai Kris bhanya?” Who are you calling Kris?

“Timlai bhanya ni, aru kallai bhannu?” Of course, I’m calling you Kris, who else would I call that? “I changed your name. I changed Hari and Sushma’s name, too. Sally said if we don’t get English name we will never get a job here in Canada,” Jamarkattel Bhauju declared to her husband.

“But why Kris? Why not something else?” Ghanshyam Dai asked.

“It comes from your middle name Krishna, you don’t even understand that much?”

Ghanshyam Dai wasn’t too excited. He liked his own Nepali name alright, but he decided not to make an argument with his headstrong wife. He knew he would never win an argument with her.

“Look, when we go to the dinner party tonight, don’t introduce yourself to anyone as Ghanshyam Krishna. Tell them you’re Kris Jamarkattel,” Jamarkattel Bhauju pre-warned her husband.

Jamarkattel Bhauju knew the Chaturvedis had also invited me to the party. So she had already called me in the afternoon to ask for a ride for the family to the party. They hadn’t yet obtained driver’s license. “Rohit Babu, are you going to the party at Chaturbedi Daju’s house tonight?” I said sure, why not.

In the evening, when I went to the Jamarkattels’ basement suite to give them a ride to the party, I saw Jamarkattel Bhauju all ready for the party, loaded with three tons of gold jewelry on her body and one pound of make up on her face. She had doused herself with a liter of perfume that smelled like dollar store brand perfume. The smell hung heavy wherever she went.

She was beaming. She quickly greeted me with a hearty Namaste with both her hands, and made sure that I noticed her gold bangles on her forearms. She repeated that ritual with everyone at the party, just to make sure that everyone noticed her heavy gold jewelry on her neck, her ears, her arms, and even around her waist and shoulders. I don’t even know what all those jewelry are called. When anyone showed some appreciation for her jewelry, she’d quickly add with a beaming face, “Mero Buwa le disya. Ani yo kan ko jhumka chai mero hajur le mero janmadin ma kindisya.”

She rarely called her husband the deferential “Hajur” at home. At home, she always called him “Timi” or “Ghane” or “Ghanshyam”. She’d say “Ghane, go do this; Ghanshyam go bring me that. Ghanshyam, go clean the bathroom.” But when others were around, she made it a point to show the traditional respect, “Hajur, sunsyo na. Eh hajur, sunsya ho ki haina? Hajur, bhuja khaisyo na. Achel hajur dublara kasto sinka jasto bhaisya chha.”

Indeed, Ghanshyam Dai was a lean and thin man. Howver, Jamarkattel Bhauju was a different story altogether. She loved to eat. She loved deep fried food and had a sweet tooth. She loved jilebis and lalmohan. The four-feet-eleven Jenny Jamarkattel had a behind that was as wide as a Banyan tree trunk.

In Nepal her father was a local politician and a deputy chairman of the Dhading District Committee of Rashtriya Prajatantra Party. He owned large pieces of land and was smart enough to make money from his political connections while the RPP folks were close to the former King Gyanendra. When the Maoists came to power, things changed for her father. He immediately switched allegiance and quickly became a staunch supporter of Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai. Despite that, the Jamarkattel family had a serious brush with the Maoist vigilante groups. To some extent, that was a reason for Jamuna Jamarkattel’s decisions to call it quits in Nepal.

Jamuna Jamarkattel had made the decision to ride the wave of emigration and leave Nepal when one night about three years ago some armed hoodlums who called themselves YCL members came to her house in Dhading and demanded cash “donation” for the protection of her family and property. They made it clear that if the Jamarkattels wouldn’t give donation, their security would be at risk. She was smart enough to understand the threat, unlike her husband who at first mistakenly thought it was all an empty threat. He was convinced quickly when one of the musclemen punched him in the eye with his fist. They warned him, “next time, it’ll be a bullet, not a fist.” In three days, they gave them ten thousand rupees. Within those three days, Jamuna Jamarkattel told her husband that they were going to apply for DV Visa lottery for America. They tried for the DV Visa lottery for two straight years, but nothing happened. Then she met Ram Prakash Chaturvedi.

Chaturvedi was her distant cousin and he was from Benighat. He had applied for Canadian Permanent Resident Visa and had advised her to try for it instead of taking a chance on the US DV Visa. It is the same Chaturvedi who had invited them to the Nepali New Year’s party in Vancouver. With help from Chaturvedi, the Jamarkattels sent in their application from Kathmandu to Canadian High Commission in New Delhi. To their utter surprise they were granted PR Visa within one year. For Jamuna Jamarkattel, that was her biggest revenge on the YCLs.

Within two months after they got Canadian PR Visa, they arrived in Vancouver as the newest landed immigrants with their eyes glazed as Tim Horton’s donuts and head, well, heady with lofty dreams. Chaturvedi jee found them the basement suite in the Dhaliwal residence in Surrey. Jamarkattel Bhauju quickly came under the influence of Sally Dhaliwal. “We don’t buy cheap things. We don’t go to BalMart. Only cheap people go to BalMart. We go to downtown Vancouver for shopping.”

“What’s BalMart?” Jamarkattel Bhauju had asked Sally.

“Jyu don’t know BalMart? Everybody knows BalMart,” despite having lived in Canada for 12 years, Sally still had the thick Patiala accent.

“Oh, I see, you mean Wal-Mart?”

“Jyaaa… that’s what I mean,” Sally put emphasis on the affirmative.

Sally Dhaliwal’s point wasn’t lost on Jamarkattel Bhauju. She wasn’t from a cheap family in Dhading. Her father was a politician, after all. So, every time the topic of shopping came up in any Nepali gathering, she’d say, “we don’t shop in Wal-Mart, we go to Robson Street for all our shopping.”

One day recently, Jamarkattel Bhauju had gone to downtown Vancouver. She entered the trendy, high-end Holt Renfrew fashion store on Alberni Street. She browsed around in the store under the stern, watchful eyes of a sales lady. It was just like in that scene in the movie Pretty Woman, in which the inappropriately dressed Julia Roberts enters a high-end store and a disapproving sales lady asks her to leave.

She checked the price of a sweater and she gasped when she saw the price, $199.99. She checked out the price of a fancy lady’s leather handbag and her lips trembled when she saw the price, $149.99. She spotted a Pashmina shawl and her throat went dry when her eyes scanned the price, $249.99. She saw a black winter coat that she had always wanted for herself. Sweat broke out of her forehead when she saw the price, $399.99. She tugged on her three children and quickly got out of the store. Since then, she only shopped at Wal-Mart with cash she tucked away inside her bra in neat rolls.

You must all be wondering how I know about all this. Well, you see, I rent the one-bedroom suite on the other side of the suite rented by the Jamarkattels. Ghanshyam Dai often comes to my suite to share “dukha sukha ka kura haru.”

During one such “dukha sukha ka kura haru” session, Kris Jamarkattel, our Ghanshyam Dai, confided in me how they settled on the name of their little son Leonardo. Six years ago, when they were visiting Kathmandu from Dhading, Jaya Nepal Chitraghar cinema was re-running the movie Titanic. Jamarkattel Bhauju had heard good reviews of the movie from her friends. So, one evening off she went with her husband to see the movie. She thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even though Ghanshyam Dai slept through it.

When the movie ended, Jamuna Devi Jamarkattel was feeling mellow and rather amorous. She couldn’t wait to get to the place where they were staying for the night. She couldn’t shake off from her mind the scene from the movie in which Leonardo DiCaprio makes steamy love to Kate Winslet in a buggy in one isolated room on the ship, Titanic. When the Jamarkattels reached home, Jamuna was hungry, if you know what I mean, and pulled her husband into the bedroom rather quickly.

Two weeks later, when Jamuna Jamarkattel found out she was pregnant, she cooed into her husband’s ear, “Hajur, sunsyo na, if it is a girl, we’ll call her Kate and if it’s a boy well name him Leonardo.” That was one of the rare occasions when Jamuna Jamarkattel called Ghanshyam Krishna Jamarkattel “Hajur” even when others were not around. Ghanshyam had other names in mind, but decided not to argue.

–
Disclaimer: This story is a product of imagination. It is completely fictional. Any resemblance of any character and name in the story with anyone is purely coincidental.

 

Lethal Injection and the Lone Fatalist: A Short Story

Note: PG13 – This story may not be a suitable reading for children under 13 years of age. Parental discretion advised.

By Ajay Pradhan | April 8, 2009

It was his fateful day. His mind was filled with ambivalence, his heart with conflicting emotions. One thing he didn’t want to admit was he was engulfed with some degree of fear and trepidation. In some way, he was ready, although reluctantly, for the justice he was going to get that day. It was Monday, April 6, 2009. It was 9:30 am. Whether it was going to be a salvation or a condemnation, he didn’t know, nor did he want too much to care.

He had committed no crime. He had only made mistakes; plenty of them. Yet he was there, resigned to face verdict and justice at the same time. Only, to him it seemed like injustice. They were going to give him the dreaded intravenous injection.

The previous night, he had told a friend about what he was going to be put through in the morning. He had needed someone to lean on to, someone to reassure him of his innocence, no matter what the verdict was going to be and no matter the severity of punishment. When he told her, she hadn’t believed it first. She simply said nonchalantly, “You need to de-stress yourself. This is supposed to be your break.” He felt her response was impersonal and that she was preoccupied with something in her mind. To him, she seemed too busy to pay him the attention that he so desired.

A break from perpetual penance is what he thought she had told him to strive for. By nature, the self-deprecating man that he was, he had lived many years of his life in a shell full of penance, pensive moments and a sense of resignation. “You think I’m joking?” he had persisted. He had merely wished she’d show some concern, if nothing much else. He didn’t seem to realize but she did care about him a lot more than he thought she did. He had merely focused on the surface and sought some words of comfort, rather than making an effort to appreciate the deep concern she had for him. If he had known about it, he didn’t want to admit.

He often wondered if the reason why he often felt a void deep inside him is that he often dwelt on instant gratification than on substance. Instant gratification, after all, doesn’t last. Substance does. He hadn’t always been like that. He had grown up in a nurturing home full of love. It wasn’t a life of opulence, but it was a comfortable middle class home. When he was an infant, an astrologer had told his parents he was destined to hold a royal scepter some day. That to his parents meant he was going to reach uncommon pinnacle of achievements in his life.

“Life! What life?” He thought to himself. He never took astrology seriously and had no special regard for astrologers. He had always thought astrology and palm-reading was for people who believed in fatalism and karma. “What your fate has in store for you, you’ll only get that,” say all astrologers to the gullibles and the ones who cared to pay attention. He couldn’t care any less for such pessimism in life. He believed in making strides with one’s own actions based on one’s own choices enhanced or constrained by a set of conditions. Political scientists probably summarized that into rational choice theory.

He shook himself out of deep thoughts and reflections as he walked. His whole life had flashed by within a matter of minutes. That fateful morning, as he was led into a room with a narrow bed little larger than a gurney, he was forced to rethink his take on fatalism. If the dreaded injection was the punishment that was in his fate, it was surely not because of a crime he had committed for he had done no such thing in his life. “It must have been in my fate all along,” he thought to himself, a little surprised at his conversion. Otherwise, why was he going to be get it?

He looked around. The room had medical equipment and instruments that looked cold and menacing. A burly man and a diminutive woman came towards him. They seemed such an odd pair. The man was huge and looked as though he was determined to carry out his task briskly. The woman was petit and seemed harmless, even caring. The man spoke with an air of authority. The woman was cordial and polite in her manners.

The woman asked him to undress waist up and lie down in bed. He paused for an awkward moment as she looked at him. The burly man had disappeared somewhere. “Go ahead, undress,” she repeated. Once the shirt came off, the woman asked if he was comfortable that way or wanted her to bring him a robe. As he wasn’t comfortable, she brought him a robe.

As he lay in bed, the woman cleaned at least a dozen or so spots all over his chest; shaved off what scant chest hair he had on those spots and put a sticky electrode patch on each spot. When she hooked a wire to each electrode, for a fleeting moment he felt as though he was being prepared for electrocution. Her warm hands and a reassuring smile on her face calmed him down. “No, she’s not electrocuting me,” he convinced himself.

The burly man came back and grabbed his arm with his cold hands. The man ordered him to clench his fist as the man tied a rubber band around his arm. The man looked at him with his cold eyes. The man’s expressionless face showed not a hint of sympathy or emotion. The man found his vein on the arm, looked him in the eyes as if to tell him, “Here you go, you deserved it.”

He lay in bed, his heart beginning to thump against his chest. He looked up at the woman, as if to plead with her to save him from the burly man who seemed anxious to finish him off. She whispered, “It’s going to be alright. You’ll feel the pain and discomfort, but we’ll do it as painlessly and quickly as possible.” Even when the burly man was poking intravenous needle into his vein, the woman seemed to understand the fear that consumed his otherwise calm face.

Once the burly man secured the needle in his vein with two layers of plastic bandage, he declared with an authoritative voice, “I’m going to start the injection.” It was an automatic syringe attached to the intravenous needle by a clear plastic tubing. The burly man turned on the switch and the syringe began to pump in, injecting into his body the chemical that would do the trick.

At first, he felt no pain, no discomfort. But quickly, he felt sharp tingles all over his body as if somebody poked a thousand needles into his body. He labored to turn his head to the side where the automatic syringe setup was kept. The syringe had injected half the chemical already. His head began to throb with pain, his breathing became labored, his body began to sweat, he was soon gasping for air. His heart now started pounding against his chest. He thought, that was it, the end was near, just a few moments away.

His whole life flashed before his eyes. He began to moan in pain. His fate was sealed, he thought as fear began to engulf him. As always in times of distress, without consciously realizing he began to call out his mother, “Ma, Maaaa…” His body began to writhe, his muscles began to twitch, he threw his head back as he sensed the end just moments away. “It’ll soon be over. And you won’t feel the pain,” the woman standing over him said calmly. “Of course, it was soon going to be over; I’ll be dead, I’ll be gone,” he wanted to scream. He panicked as the chemical being injected into his vein was making its final impact. His whole body was in fire, his heart was racing as if he had been running on a steeply inclined treadmill with increasing speed. He thought only a few final gasps of breathing remained in his body, but he still mumbled for mercy. Mercy from the punishment for a crime he had not committed. Only, his fate had been sealed from the time he was born.

At that moment, his began to think of all the astrologers who insisted on fatalism. No matter what you do, if it is not in your fate, you won’t be able to achieve anything, he heard himself mumbling. He hadn’t done anything to deserve the ultimate punishment he was getting, yet he was getting it nevertheless. In what appeared to him to be his final moments, he became a believer in fatalism, determinism, predestination. He became a fatalist who subjugated all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination. In his mind, free human will had no role anymore. He had become a defeatist.

Then came the final moment. His twitching body became still, his moans stopped. Lights went dark in his world. The injection had taken its effect. They had finally made him make a penance for a crme he hadn’t committed. He had met his fate. There was no need for logic or for justification. He was gone.

After about 15 minutes, the woman standing by his bed placed her warm hand on his cold arm. “Hello,” she whispered. Magically his eyes opened. “Where am I? In heaven or hell?” he awoke to the reality.

“You’re in hospital bed. We just gave you persantine intravenous injection. You have just completed the first half of the cardiolite/persantine myoview test,” the woman, who was a nurse, said to him.

“A what test? You mean, I’m alive?” he wanted reassurance.

“Of course, you’re alive and well. It’s also called a stress test.”

“Then what was that all about… the death sentence by lethal injection?”

“It was no lethal injection. It was just a chemical with radioactive isotope injected into your body. It increases heart rate as if you were under physical stress and the radioactive chemical infuses through tiny arteries of your heart so that when your heart is scanned with a camera we could tell if there is any blockage in your arteries during times of stress,” the nurse described to him, handing him a face towel to wipe off his perspiration.

“I thought I had died, I thought that burly man put me to death for a crime I hadn’t committed.”

“Oh, that burly man is cardiac diagnostic specialist,” the nurse clarified, giggling.

“I’m sorry, I thought he was my hangman.”

“Haha, don’t worry. The next part of the test is going to be easier on you. You’re free to go and eat and drink anything. Come back in an hour at 11:30 am and go to the nuclear imaging room. Somebody will take pictures of your heart and send the report to your doctor.”

“Nurse, am I sick?”

“No, you’re not. It is a diagnostic procedure just to see if you are at risk. Your doctor ordered this stress test.”

“Thank you, nurse,” he smiled at her and walked towards the door. He paused and turned toward the nurse, “Nurse, are you a fatalist?”

“What do you mean?”

“Do you believe in fate?”

“Gosh I don’t know how to answer that.”

“Do you treat someone believing that the treatment won’t work because revovery is not in the fate of the patient?”

“Oh, gosh, of course, not. There is no such thing as fate. All consequences are the result of our actions.”

His face brightened, “Thank you, nurse.”

“You’re very welcome. But, why did you ask me that question?”

“Because for a moment of distress while I was in bed I had turned into a fatalist. I have never believed in fatalism, but for a brief time today I was compelled to give in, surrender, you know.”

“Surrender to what, to who?”

“To all the astrologers. To the fatalists. To predestination. I thought I was a lone fighter trying hard not to believe in fate and karma.”

“Well, I can assure you, you’re not alone. I’m with you. I don’t believe in fatalism.”

“It’s funny… when the injection had its effect on me, I thought I was being given capital punishment for a crime I didn’t commit. I thought even when the distress forced me to become a fatalist, I thought I was a lone fatalist,” he said to the nurse.

“I hope you’re not a fatalist now,” the nurse looked into his eyes.

“No, nurse, I’m not. I didn’t receive the lethal injection, but surely the fatalism did,” he smiled, thanked the nurse again and departed from the room.

He was hungry. He hadn’t eaten breakfast. As he walked towards the small cafeteria in the hospital, he was still a little wobbly in his knees due to the fatigue the chemical had caused.

“Are you okay?” A young woman in the hallway who spotted his unsteady steps asked him.

He looked at her. She reminded him of his friend who he had talked with about his stress test the previous night.

“I’ll be fine, thank you,” he said, his eyes moist all of a sudden. He thought, at least a stranger cared enough to stop and ask if he was ok. The world was still a beautiful place.

“You sure I can’t do anything to help you?” the attractive young woman said.

“I’m sure I’m going to be alright, but thank you.”

“You’re welcome… and have a great day,” the young woman smiled at him and walked away.

He turned around, looked at her walking away until she vanished around a corner… and then he whispered, “God bless you. You’re kind … you’re considerate.”

He stood there for a long moment, dabbed his moist eyes with his shirt sleeve and walked toward the cafeteria.

 

A Small Step

By Ajay Pradhan | March 27, 2009

She walks across
a busy street
crowded with pigeons
not knowing
that a set of watchful eyes
looking down upon her
intent to sweep her up,
lift up,
fly her to a place
set on cloud.
Is he her god of salvation?
Or her god from heaven?
Once across the street
she turns around
pauses
with a smile
on her face
she raises her hand
to the man looking
down upon her.
It isn’t her god
of salvation,
nor is he
her god from heaven.
For her, it is
more than any god,
it is her father who
lets her cross
the street
for the first time,
under his watchful eyes,
with a sense of pride
in his heart,
that he just let his little girl
take a small step to
learning
the paths of her life.

A Small Step

 

Israel Has a Choice to Make

Ajay Pradhan | January 16, 2009

A Palestinian family rush past a burning building in the Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza Strip after it was hit by an Israeli missile strike. (Photo Credit: AP)

Israel has a choice to make.

It can choose to be surrounded by enemies. Or it can choose to be surrounded by friends. Either way, the Palestinians are not going to go anywhere. They have lived there for centuries.

When Israel was founded 60 years ago in 1948, it was with the intention of giving Jews of the Middle East a homeland. It was not with the intention of depriving the Palestinians of their homeland.

Since it came into existence 60 years ago in 1948, it has always been surrounded by enemies. In the last 60 years, Israel hasn’t changed its course in its relations with its neighbors. If it continues to do what it has done for the past 60 years, Israel will continue to be surrounded by enemies.

The current ongoing brutal military attack in Gaza must stop. Israel must cease military operation in Gaza. One innocent civilian life lost is one too many. And too many civilian lives have been lost since Israel began its military campaign over Gaza a few weeks ago.

I don’t condone terrorism. But it is now time we looked at terrorism not only from a principled standpoint, but also from the standpoint of pragmatism. We’ve got to pay attention to the hard realities. Just saying terrorism is unacceptable is not enough; Israel and the global community have to do something to go to the modalities of terrorism.

If Israeli leaders think their current military operation will stop terrorism, they are gravely mistaken. Generations of Palestinians have known no peace. Palestinian youths and children see no great future. All they see is killing of their families and friends. If a Palestinian child grows up seeing devastation, killing of their loved ones, and destruction of their homes and schools, they will grow up with a seething sense of revenge.

The  current military attack of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel may weaken Hamas militias on the short term, but I doubt it will emaciate them, much less wipe them out. A militarily weakened Hamas may be a strategic mistake for Israelis. A weak Hamas will have nothing much to rely on, but to resort to terrorism. By killing Palestinian civilians, Israel has given birth to future terrorists. Hamas will train them. How will that bring security to the Israelis in the southern part of Israel that they are saying is the reason why they are attacking Gaza? I doubt Israeli leaders can answer that question.

It is incredible, even incredulous, that the United States and Canada have a ready-made answer on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both the U.S. and Canada say Israelis have the right to protect themselves. Of course, that’s a no brainer. But, does that right have to be exercised in such a brutal way? Why can’t the U.S. and Canada show the world that they have guts to speak against killing of innocent civilians? Are Palestinian lives not worth saving? Their lives are just as precious as the life of an Israeli. 

Israel must immediately stop the attack and retreat from Gaza. And the world must do all it can to provide a stable and sovereign homeland to the Palestinians urgently. It is 60 years overdue.

Photo Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdfd186a-d4f0-11dd-b967-000077b07658.html

 

Maoist’s Attack On the Media Continue: Are YCLs the New Mandales?

Ajay Pradhan | December 24, 2008

These are strange times. But these are not unique times. History repeats itself.

When in government, you’re supposed to maintain law and order. What do you do when those who are in power themselves defend, even encourage, actions of musclemen who attack, intimidate with violence and death threats, vandalize, and carry out violent physical assaults on journalists who don’t tow their line?

In Nepal, under the implicit protection and complicity of the leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist, the party that leads the current governing coalition, the Maoist-affiliated trade union groups have got a free pass from the CPN-Maoist leadership to unleash with impunity a reign of terror on the free press.

Despite leading the governing coalition, Maoists are still continuing their insurgency-time mentality and behavior of using violence to intimidate free press that dare to report news that the Maoists don’t like. Such attack on the free press is unacceptable and should not go unpunished.

On Sunday, approximately 50 Maoist-affiliated trade union members, most of whom are the defamed and feared Maoist-affiliated Young Communist League members (more commonly known simply as the YCL), carried out a vicious physical attack on the journalists, management and staff of Himalmedia, a Kathmandu-based media enterprise that publishes such reputable publications as the Nepali Times and the Himal Khabarpatrika and vandalized their head office. Many Himalmedia staffers were injured in the assault by a large gang of masked Maoist YCLs.

The attack drew immediate national and international condemnation. The embarrassed Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda put a political spin on the matter and blamed the attack on whom he called the “ex-monarchists” who he said infiltrated his party to defame them. The very next day, however, the defiant Maoist trade union chief, Salikram Jammarkattel, who is also a Maoist member of the Constituent Assembly, ironically rendered Prachanda’s spin doctoring worthless when he threatened further, more vicious attacks on Himalmedia, if the media house did not yield in to the demands of Maoist trade union. That was an admission that Maoist leadership encouraged the attack. The two Maoist trade union leaders who led the attackers were reportedly safely ensconced in a YCL camp. Their demand was reinstatement of 22 non-journalist staffers who were let go.

Prachanda and Jammarkattel should know you don’t settle labor dispute through physical attacks. If Himalmedia had let go those 22 staff members illegally, then the proper course of action would be to go to a labor tribunal or a court of law. Physical assault by a group that is affiliated with the party in power can only be construed as the government’s intention to muzzle the free press. Maoists maintain that this is an issue of labor dispute. However, facts show that this is an issue of Maoists trying to muzzle the press. It appears that Sunday’s assault was triggered by criticism of Jammarkattel the previous day by the Himal Khabarpatrika. This is deeply troubling. You simply don’t muzzle criticism of a public figure by using physical force. Maoists must realize that their days of guerrilla insurgency are over. They must play fair and peaceful politics.

This is not the first time Maoist-affiliated labor groups have attacked Himalmedia. On October 25, Maoist perpetrators attacked with stones the Himalmedia CEO and his driver while they were in a van. On November 16, a group of Maoists burned 5,000 copies of a Himalmedia newspaper at a distribution depot. Then they made death threats against Himalmedia staffers the next day.

In October 2007, Maoists vandalized the offices of another large Kathmandu-based media enterprise, the Kantipur Publications that publishes such popular newspapers as the Kathmandu Post and the Kantipur for ciriticizing the Maoist party. Even after winning the Constituent Assembly election, Prachanda himself is on record for having warned Kantipur journalists not to criticize the Maoists and made unspecified threats if the media house did not comply with his demand. There have been many other attacks on journalists; some have even been murdered.

This is not how a government builds a nation. This is not how a government inspires confidence. This is not how a government builds trust. Without confidence and trust, the Maoists might as well forget about building a New Nepal.

Let’s be very clear on one thing. Intimidation and violent physical attacks cannot and will not muzzle the media. Prachanda would do well for himself keeping this basic tenet of free press and freedom of speech squarely in his mind. Otherwise, the rising infamy of vicious YCL activities will engulf the credibility of Prachanda and his comrades, much like what the infamous Mandales did to expedite the demise of the seemingly invincible Panchayat system of government that had undemocratically ruled the country for 30 years from the 1960s to the 1980s, banning opposition political parties. That history is not very old and still fresh in our memory. The much despised Panchayati Mandales did then what YCLs are doing today.

If Maoists don’t check the activities of YCL, they had better recall the fate of the despised and infamous Mandales of the Panchayat era that was, in part, responsible for the end of the Panchayat system. If YCLs are not the new Mandales, Maoists will have to show that.

 

Maoists’ Plan Will Reverse Progress in Education and Healthcare Sectors

By Ajay Pradhan | November 6, 2008

Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai has reportedly asked the private educational institutions in Nepal to look for alternative means for making investments. The media reports quote him as saying today at a function organized by Maoist-affiliated student wing, that it is the state’s responsibility to provide basic education and health to its people. His statement reveals what may be on the way in Maoists’ education and healthcare policy.

There is something wrong with this picture. First, as if by the power of magic, Bhattarai appears to have curiously developed the ability and acumen of a financial investment analyst to advise investors how and where to invest their money. Bhattarai is no investment analyst. He’s a politician. He’s a politician with rigid communist ideology that has produced no beneficial results anywhere the ideology has been practiced.

Second, Bhattarai’s plan (or is it just a wish?) clearly leaves no room for private sector participation in education and health sectors. It’s not bad for the state to provide basic education and healthcare services (and actually, it is expected) and I’ll give Bhattarai credit for that. But, for a country that needs to leap-frog if at all it wants to emerge from the shackles of poverty and underdevelopment, “basic” is just not enough. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Bhattarai.

What does Bhattarai want to do? What now then? No Rato Bangala? No Budhanilkantha School? No St. Xavier’s and St. Mary’s? No AVM? No Norvic? No private school? No private hospitals?

To the extent that the government’s role is to enable the state to provide basic education and healthcare, I agree with Bhattarai. But, his idea that private sector involvement is not necessary in either education or health sector comes off as a belligerent argument of a nut-case politician. I’m sorry for this harsh assessment, but Bhattarai has left no room for much else.

Nepal needs public-private partnership both in education and healthcare sectors. That is the only way Nepal will create centers of excellence. Just to provide fodder for ultra leftists within the party that are indoctrinated with unbending political philosophy that equalization is the objective, Bhattarai is simply trying to lower the bar for excellence. You don’t need to destroy centers of excellence in the name of providing equal opportunity. Instead, government’s focus should be on increasing investment in public school system and improve their quality. That’s how you provide opportunities to the underprivileged, not by eliminating private sector participation. The government should leave private schools and private hospitals alone.

Eliminating private participation in education and healthcare sectors, or any other sector, for that matter, will not only stifle the spirit of promoting excellence, but will also be a bad economic policy. It will drive away capital investment from abroad. Nepal badly needs foreign capital investment to develop its resource base.

If Bhattarai has problem with certain run-of-the-mill private schools and healthcare centers whose quality of service is questionable, then he ought to be able to control them. He has the power and the wherewithal to do so. You don’t amputate the whole limb if your finger is hurting.

Eliminating private sector involvement in education and healthcare sectors is the surest way of eliminating the basis for promoting excellence. Without excellence, Nepal government might as well forget making Nepal competitive in today’s globalized economy.

Bhattarai also remarked that “the government is preparing to distribute academic certificates through open universities to those individuals who could not receive formal education due to their involvement in the Maoist war.” Is Bhattarai for real? Has he lost his mind? Well, he might as well go ahead and distribute Ph.D.’s to all his Maoist “friends who could not pursue education due to their involvement in the armed conflict.” This is too bizarre that it isn’t even funny.

 

U.S. Presidential Election: Endorsing Barack Obama

By Ajay Pradhan | October 28, 2008

Sen. Obama (right) with running-mate Sen. Biden (left)

A week from today, Americans will go to the polls to elect their president. They have two starkly different choices that are essentially contrasted by their judgment, their approach and their vision.

The first test of judgment that a presidential candidate is put through is when he or she selects his or her running mate.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate, selected a running mate who has demonstrated no evidence of understanding and grasp of domestic or foreign policy issues. Her lack of knowledge is simply breathtaking. During this election campaign season, she has managed to project herself as though she’s running for, not the vice president of the most powerful nation on earth, but the leadership of a beauty pageant selection committee. It is astounding that Sen. McCain calls himself a maverick and yet selected someone who is neck-deep in far right-wing conservative demagoguery. By selecting Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, McCain has demonstrated his impulsiveness and lack of seriousness in making the first and one of the most important decisions as a potential president. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be vice president, let alone president of the United States.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the democratic candidate, selected a running mate who has a strong foreign policy experience. His running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, has the mettle and the knowledge to stare down any foreign adversary or competitor. By selecting Sen. Biden, Sen. Obama has shown maturity, seriousness, and sound judgment in making the first and the most important decision as a potential president. Joe Biden is not a yes-man and which is exactly what Barack Obama wanted and needs in a running mate. He wanted a running mate who could point out his mistakes. Joe Biden is eminently qualified to be vice president or president of the United States.

Most likely, it will not be often that Barack Obama will have to stare down anyone in the global arena, as an Obama Administration will forge a foreign policy based not on confrontation but on mutual respect and understanding. He will discard the Bush Doctrine of unilateralism, nonengagement and preemptive strike, and violation of international laws and disregard for the United Nations. He will use diplomacy to resolve international conflicts. Anyone can strike an enemy; Barack Obama has the courage to talk to the enemy.

On the contrary, John McCain’s approach to international relations would be defined by Bush Doctrine of defiance, subjugation of United Nations and stubborn nonengagement. In the name of national security, Sen. McCain would ignore the constructive role of diplomacy and, instead, use brute force, in much the same way as President George Bush has. McCain does not seem to understand that the United States is powerful not because of its arms, but because of the liberty and ingenuity of American people. McCain is blinded by political ideology and lets intransigent ideology get in the way of foreign policy. A McCain Administration would simply extend Bush Administration’s foreign policy brimming with disdain for international cooperation, multilateralism and due regard for the United Nations.

McCain has a narrow and dogmatic political vision on major domestic and global issues. For example, he claims to have a moderate view on global warming and after opposing offshhore oil drilling for years, he has reversed his stand against it and has now not only supported it but also vigorously promoted offshore oil drilling. He does not have the vision that continued investment in non-renewable energy resource is a short-sighted investment and bad for the environment. Barak Obama, on the other hand, believes that energy independence means investing in alternate energy resources that are the energy of the future and good for the environment.

McCain’s political vision is clouded by one and one issue only–national security and increased spending for military buildup. Obama has an open mind and recognizes that the best national security comes not by creating a fortress around the national borders but by treating international community of nations with respect and understanding.

McCain’s response to the Wall Street financial meltdown has been one marked by impulsiveness and knee-jerk reaction. He did not demonstrate a grasp of the problem or could come up with any useful solution. His vision for economic growth and well-being is riddled with age-old rigid conservative philosophy of repeating the populist mantra “tax cuts and small government”. His obstinate stance that giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich, not to working and the middle class families, will trickle down to the working class has not helped lift the economy nor has it provided any relief to the working and the middle class.

Barak Obama, on the other hand, has shown steady leadership and surrounded himself with the best economic minds of the country to understand and respond to the Wall Street financial crisis. His tax policy clearly is designed to boost the economy and provide tax relief to the working and middle class families. He correctly understands that in this era of globalization trickle-down economics does not work.

Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are fine, patriotic men who have the best interest of the country and its people in their heart. But, they have sharp differences in their judgment, their approach, and their vision. John McCain represents the past. Barack Obama represents change and the future. John McCain will continue George Bush’s unilateralist foreign policy. Barack Obama will forge a forein policy based on diplomacy and mutual respect. I endorse Barack Obama for the president of the United States.

I urge my American friends to vote for Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden on November 4th. I urge my American friends to encourage neighbors, friends and families to vote for Barack Obama.

Photo Credit:
J. Scott Applewhite (AP File Photo)

 

United Nations: Not a Place for Pushing Political Ideology

By Ajay Pradhan | October 24, 2008

Sixty-three years ago today, on October 24, 1945, the United Nations came into being when the Soviet Union deposited its instrument of ratification of the U.N. Charter. The Soviet Union became the last of the five major powers (the other four being United States, Britain, France and Republic of China, which was much later replaced in the Security Council by the People’s Republic of China) and the 29th of 51 nations, the minimum necessary to declare the formation of the United Nations. U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrneshad signed the protocol formally attesting that the Charter of the United Nations had come into force. This day marks the birth of the U.N. and is celebrated as the United Nations Day.

The works of this international body,  founded to establish world security have been defined by international cooperation, diplomacy and common understanding. However, it is sad to note that this august international institution has come under attacks, disdain and ridicule, especially from the conservative quarters in the U.S. and Canada. It is not hard to recognize that the contempt is the misguided foreign policy of conservative governments that have little regard for multilateralism and mutual respect.

The U.N. epitomizes the need for all 192 member-countries of the world to work together through the spirit of mutual respect, common understanding, and use of international diplomacy. Whether the challenge is to resolve a military or political conflict within and between member-nations or to eradicate malaria or to cut emission of greenhouse gases, the U.N. seeks to solve problems with the spirit of international amity. But does this always happen? Has this always happened? No, not really.

Take the U.S. arm-twisting of the U.N. Security Council in 2002, for example, during the deliberations on weapons of destruction (WMD) that the conservative Administration of President George Bush said Iraq had. We now know Iraq never had WMD. In the post-9/11 world, in November 2002, the U.S. was able to arm-twist the Security Council members to get a unanimous vote on Resolution 1441. In order to justify attacking Iraq, the U.S. created a Coalition of the Willing, with many countries in the General Assembly opposing an invasion.

Bush utilized 9/11 to give to the world his doctrine of pre-emptive attack in the name of homeland security. The Bush Doctrine conveniently turned the need for defensive measures to an immature offensive and disastrous action, unilaterally telling the world that the attack was necessary to defend the U.S. from an attack that the U.S. thought would happen in the future. The Bush Doctrine, supported by Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australia’s Conservative former Prime Minister John Howard, trampled on international diplomacy, and multilateralism.

The Bush Administration amplified its disdain for the U.N. when Bush appointed a known harsh U.N. critic John R. Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 2005, signalling America’s intention of using unilateralism over diplomacy and multilateralism at the U.N. Bush appointed Bolton, despite his ultra-conservative stance against not only the U.N. but also international allies as well as other countries, during Congressional recess as Bolton had no chance of being confirmed by the U.S. Congress.

Bush once showed his disregard for the U.N. when he said the U.N. risked irrelevance. Bush became antagonistic of the U.N. when the world body did not support the American invasion of Iraq. The U.S. disdain for the U.N. is not limited to the Bush Administration. Ronald Reagan had similar contempt for the U.N., especially during his first term as President. Reagan had accused the U.N. of “subordinating American interests” and insulted the U.N. as a “den of authoritarian regimes and small despots.”

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper has shown no less contempt for the U.N. Harper has stood lock-step-and-barrel with Bush in undermining the U.N. In 2003, Harper gave a speech in the parliament urging the Liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien to join Bush’s War on Iraq, disregarding U.N.’s plea for multilateral approach to Iraq. We now know that Harper had plagiarized his speech by lifting major portion of his speech from a speech laced with ultra-conservatism that was previously given by John Howard, the then conservative prime minister of Australia, who was another of Bush’s handful of supporters in the unilateral invasion of Iraq.

Bush, Harper and Howard, the three conservative triumvirates,  have not only shown their confrontational approach to Iraq. They have shown as much disregard for the environment as they have for international security. U.N. The three conservative triumvirates have shown opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The United States and Australia never ratified the Kyoto Protocol.  Only after Howard was swept out of power did a new labor government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd supported the Kyoto Protocol and the latest U.N. efforts in crafting a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

Canada under Stephen Harper trashed the Kyoto Protocol that had been ratified by Jean Chretien’s government. In November 2006, then environment minister of Canada, Rona Ambrose, went to the U.N. environmental summit held in Nairobi, Kenya and spoke for three minutes mainly attacking the previous Liberal government and providing no hint on what her party’s conservative government intended to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and puzzling the delegates from 190 countries.

On this United Nations Day, I hope politicians realize that United Nations is not an institution for pushing a political ideology or a venue for fighting domestic political battles. The United Nations is a common international organization of 192 countries of the world, which promotes world security, eradication of disease, lifting the poor out of poverty, environmental protection, and global prosperity. Governments who have the power to implement their policies within their countries must recognize the diplomatic role of the United Nations. All governments must treat it with respect it deserves.

 

From Penury to Prosperity? With Maoist Party’s Goal of a Communist State?

By AJAY PRADHAN | October 20, 2008

Is the governing Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (CPN-M) in disarray? Mutually incongruous statements have recently come out in the media from the party supremo Prachanda and his second-ranking aide Baburam Bhattarai.

Finance Minister Bhattarai is quoted by the Kathmandu-based Nepali Times on October 13 as saying at a talk program in Washington, DC recently that “our ultimate goal is communism… I don’t want to be dishonest.” Bhattarai was in the U.S. capital to attend the joint annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

In the recent weeks, when he was in New Delhi, Bhattarai pleaded for foreign direct investment (FDI) in Nepal. Prime Minister Prachanda himself has, on several different occasions, stated Nepal welcomes foreign capital investment.

While in the U.S., Bhattarai traveled to Cambridge, Massachusetts and gave a talk entitled “Penury to Prosperity: A Talk On Nepal’s Economic Future” at Harvard University. He dreams of lifting Nepal from penury to prosperity and yet unabashedly states that his party’s political goal is to turn Nepal into a communist state. Not going to happen. Mr. Bhattarai ought to quit day dreaming. How about being pragmatist and moving away from the far left edge of the political spectrum? He can give swaggering political statements about his political objective, but he cannot convince the global community that Nepal, under the Maoists’ long-term rigid and ideological agenda of establishing a communist state, would be a safe bet for foreign investment.

Nepal needs three things for economic growth. First, much needed capital for increasing productivity. Nepal can raise this capital, for example, by inviting FDI. Second, foreign markets for Nepali goods and services to grow Nepal’s economy and earn the much needed foreign currency to pay for import of goods and services that Nepal does not have. Third, productive workforce. Nepal needs to create a productive workforce rapidly. Foreign investors with lot of capitals will not come to Nepal if Nepal cannot provide trained workers and open up royalty-generating productive resource base. These are the three essential elements for putting the country on a path of economic development. Nepal needs no miracle. If politicians are willing to be pragmatic, then Nepal can achieve success.

One essential precondition for FDI is for any foreign company, whether owned by foreigners or by non-resident Nepalis, to be able to invest in Nepal without the fear of their capital investment ever being nationalized. Nobody will come to invest in Nepal if the country’s finance minister blusters in international arena that his party’s political goal is turning the country into a communist state where the state could deprive the owner of the company the right to property. The second essential precondition is the ability of the foreign company that establishes an affiliate company in Nepal to exercise control (in terms of percentage ownership and voting rights within the company) over its forein affiliate.

In order for a country to grow economically, its government has to play less obstructionist role and more of facilitator’s role. Hard-nosed socialism, let alone communism, will not afford the free-market confidence that the forein investors need and want. By any which name, government intervention and ownership of public enterprises is a recipe for killing market competition and efficiency.

What Nepal needs is a free market system with only oversight and enforcement role for the government when market fails. Nothing more. No government ownership of Nepal Oil Corporation. No monopoly ownership of electric utility company. No government ownership of Nepal Telecom. No government ownership of Nepal Airlines. No government ownership of commodity production and supplies distribution enterprises. No more monopolies.

It’s a shame that Nepal government more or less has a monopoloy ownership and operational controls over these enterprises and yet can’t provide the basic supplies and services that people need. It’s a shame that Nepal government owns Nepal Oil Corporation, the monopolistic behemoth, whose only job is to import, store and distribute fuel oils, and still scarcity forces consumers to form a lineup for hours to be able to purchase a few liters of gasoline. It’s a shame that the government owns the only electric utility in the country and still almost all homes in Kathmandu, the country’s capital, have to endure power outage for 4-8 hours a day, 6 days a week. When you are in that kind of situation, you have to wonder if Nepal is yet in the 21st Century.

In all these enterprises and more others, we need less government control and intervention, not more. How do the Maoists like Prachanda and Bhattarai think of growing the country’s economy when their political dream is to establish a communist state? We don’t have to look much beyond Nepal’s neighbors to see that it is by introducing liberal economic policies that both India and China have been able to remove bureaucratic hurdles for transaction and investment and put the countries on a path to achieving double digit growth rates. India liberalized its capital flow policies in trade and investment sectors and is now reaping the benefits in terms of high economic growth rates. China liberalized its economy in 1979 when Deng Xiaoping trashed Mao’s stiffling communist economic policies all but in name. Soviet empire collapsed in 1992 under the dead-weight of failing communist economic policies.

Maoists’ robotic use of rhetorics and propaganda of fighting the feudals in Nepal is getting a little tiring. Nepal must focus on increasing productivity, growing the economy and creating wealth. If you don’t have wealth, not any kind of wealth and land redistribution is going to put the country on the path to prosperity.

Gone are the days of closed economy of communism. Nepal needs international partners to help gain economic momentum. This is the era of globalization. Mr. Bhattarai, quit your swagger, be a pragmatist, and stop being a hurdle to taking the country on a road to liberty, human rights, freedom of assembly and speech, multi-party political competition, right to property, and open economy with little government control. It’s only with open mind, not closed, that Nepalis will be able to lift the country from penury to prosperity.

Photo Credit:
Prakash Singh/AFP/Getty Images

 

Cap-and-Trade Policy: Trading Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By AJAY PRADHAN | October 18, 2008

A global problem of unprecedented magnitude requires unprecedented solution. Carbon dioxide emission is the chief anthropogenic cause of global warming and climate change. The sources of carbon dioxide are widespread and varied–automobiles, industries, thermal power plants, you name it. Unless we do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, scientists say that climate change can potentially cause unprecedented adverse environmental effects, causing widespread and, possibly, irreversible damage to many parts of the world.

How do you reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Currently, there are essentially three ways of doing it–command and control or mandates, taxes and fines, and tradeable permits. None of these three instruments are adequate when used as the only means of reducing emissions. I think there ought to be an emission control regime that combines all three approaches.

Command-and-Control  or Regulatory Mandates:

The first approach is the “command-and-control” method. The government can introduce legislation to require action by industry. Traditionally, governments around the world has used this “command and control” policy to protect the environment from various pollutions.

In British Columbia, an example of this approach is the Contaminated Sites Regulation under the Environmental Management Act. The government may use this legislation to require the landowner of a contaminated site to remediate it. Noncompliance could lead to government-enforced restriction on the use or development of the land.

In the U.S., the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are examples of this command-and-control approach. The command-and-control policy does not promote optimal reduction in carbon dioxide. It simply motivates the polluters to do just the minimum work required stay in compliance. Under this scheme, companies are not motivated to do more than they can to reduce emissions.

Carbon Emission Tax:

The second approach is using tax incentives to promote environmentally responsible behavior. Tax incentive is based on the concept of internalizing the negative externality by putting a price tag on pollution. A negative externality is a price that is paid by an unwilling third party. Unless internalized, the negative externality remains as a burden on the society. There are two ways the government can use tax incentives–positive and negative incentives.

When government gives tax credits to companies for implementing voluntary measures to cut down on carbon emission, you call it positive tax incentive. When government levies tax to companies that do no comply with government regulated emission targets, you call it negative tax incentive. Either way, government assigns certain monetary value to emission targets and companies either pay tax or receive tax credits for their behavior. Under the tax incentive scheme, the government sets up a tax regime for industries that emit carbon dioxide.

Such carbon tax instrument puts a price on the carbon dioxide emission. Industries are allowed to emit carbon dioxide, but they have to pay tax for such emission. The tax collected would then be used in paying for emission reduction from other sources. While levying tax encourages industry to not emit carbon dioxide, providing tax rebates encourage them to reduce emission. You can also include punitive fines for non-compliance under this category. Government generates tax revenue from this scheme, as long as the net carbon dioxide release exceeds a certain level set by the government.

Carbon Emission Trading or Cap-and-Trade:

The third and newest approach is the use of a mechanism often known as “cap-and-trade” or “emission trading” policy. This policy involves the use of tradeable permits to emit carbon dioxide to a limit or cap set by the government or an international body. You can think of tradeable permits as something similar to company stocks that you can trade in a financial stock exchange.

In this scheme, the government sets a limit or cap on overall carbon dioxide emission by all sources of carbon emission within a jurisdiction. Such overall emission limits are based on the target that the government wants to reach. Each source (e.g., a company that emits carbon dioxide) is alloted certain units of tradeable permit to emit a determined level of emission. Each company that participates in this scheme is required to hold equivalent number of allowances or credits as they are issues the emission permit. These permits allow them to emit a specific amount of carbon dioxide. The companies can then trade these emission permits, much like company stocks, among themselves.

A company that emits carbon less than the permitted level will be able to sell it to another company that emits higher level than allowed. A company that pollutes more than its allowance will have to pay for the extra pollution; and a company that pollutes less than its allowance is rewarded monetarily through trading. Under this scheme, the government’s role is limited to setting the cap or the maximum limit on overall level of carbon dioxide emission and making sure verification measures are in place for permit trading. The price of each unit of tradeable permit is set by the market (i.e., the companies that buy and sell these tradeable permits).

It is also up to the companies to decide what technology to use to achieve their alloted level of carbon emission. In theory, the cap-and-trade scheme is supposed to be self-governing and is driven by demand and supply mechanism of the market. The scheme generates no revenue for the government, except for, maybe, nominal administrative fees. This is, therefore, more cost effective for the companies to achieve government’s goal. The society achieves carbon emission goals cost effectively. 

In Canada and the United States, the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), about which I wrote three months ago in July, is developing a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases. Alberta and Saskatchewan, the two Canadian provinces that are rich in oil and gas reserves, have refused to join the WCI and criticized the WCI’s cap-and-trade policy as “cash grab” attempt by resource poor provinces.

Europe is ahead of Canada and United States in the implementation of emission trading schemes. The European Union Emission Trading Scheme, which commenced operation in January 2005, is the largest trading scheme for greenhouse gases. It is by far the largest multi-country, multi-sector greenhouse gas emission trading scheme worldwide.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that was signed in 1997 that came into force in 2005, most developed countries are bound to comply with a cap and trade system for six major types of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. China and India, the two countries that are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases never ratified the the Kyoto Protocol. The United States, complaining that China and India did not sign the treaty, did not ratify the treat. Canada, under the Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, had ratified the treaty, but later under the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, backed out of the treaty, saying the major polluters (i.e., USA, China and India) have not ratified the treaty.  

More Reading:

http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/ewebeditpro/items/O104F19866.PDF
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/index_en.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol