Saorsa
31st May 2010, 03:50
This article is from last year, but in light of the current political crisis in Nepal it provides some valuable insight into the plans the Maoists have for the transformation on the Nepali countryside and their concept of federalism.
The tiller should own the land
07/10/2009
Hari Roka, a Constituent Assembly (CA) member nominated by the Maoist party, is also a member of the CA’s Committee on the Distribution of Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Public Revenue. The Committee was recently in the news regarding disputes about land reform. Roka spoke about what issue were being discussed and what continued to sources of conflict between members of various parties.
Q: What are the Committee on the Distribution of Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Public Revenue’s primary responsibilities?
Roka: There are two parts to the work of our Committee. First, to create provisions for the management of natural resources in the federal structure. Second, to create provisions for managing financial rights and the distribution of revenue in the new state structure.
There are three aspects to the management of natural resources: they regard water, forests and land. Regarding land, 46 percent of families possess between 0.1 and 0.5 hectares of land. The average size of these families is 5.8 people. The size of the landholdings is therefore not sufficient to provide these families with a livelihood. So, we have prepared a framework according to which land reform should take place.
Q: What method of land reform have you decided to implement?
Roka: We studied the four models of land reform that have taken place. First, the kind undertaken by the Europeans and North Americans; second, what was undertaken in South America; third, the attempts by Socialist countries such as China and Russia; and fourth, the kind undertaken by the Koreans, Taiwanese and Japanese.
The Americans learnt from the Prussians. The landlords themselves institutionalized the wage system. So the feudals turned into capitalists. Gradually, land gradually became concentrated in the hands of capitalists and others were displaced. Some remained as wage labourers, others went to work in industries. The South Americans freed themselves from European colonization. But the big landlords kept control of the land. Now that socialist governments have come to power in 12 Latin American countries, they are in the process of undertaking land reform and redistribution, without providing compensation to the previous owners. In China and Russia, the state captured all land, and after that, according to the need of both the people and the state, prepared communes and cooperatives.
Land reform in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan was imposed by the Americans, as a tool to make communism less attractive to the population there. All land was taken by the government. The government then collected data on the nature and quality of land and of all families. Then it asked people what occupation they wanted to enter. Then the governments then redistributed land according to the needs of the family and the quality of the land that was being provided. This was a very effective method of land reform. In South Korea, for instance, 87 percent of people were in agriculture in the 1950s. Now, only 10 percent are. They understood that land reform did not simply mean redistribution, that it was necessary to provide seeds, fertilizer, to create a market and credit etc. Great growth took place in the agricultural sector as a result, and this created resources to invest in the industrial sector, setting the foundations for export-led growth.
We have thus come to the conclusion that the most suitable method of land reform for Nepal is the fourth one.
Q: The Maoists have a dispute with the Nepali Congress and other parties regarding whether to provide compensation to those whose lands will be taken or not.
Roka: The method of land reform that involves compensation is the World Bank’s model. It is meant to rescue the landlords. When the Maoists started capturing land and distributing it to farmers a number of years ago, the World Bank brought this compensation programme.
But we believe that no compensation should be provided. The Land Reform Commission led by Keshav Badal presented its report to the Manmohan Adhikari government nearly 15 years ago. Badal said that providing compensation in the process of land reform would cost Rs. 45 billion. Now, according to our calculations, it will cost the state more than Rs. 200 billion. If we do this, we will have to take loans from multilateral agencies or from bilateral donors. At the current time, almost 28 percent of the core budget goes towards paying previous loans in installments. If we borrow Rs. 200 billion, almost 60 percent of our core budget will go towards servicing loans. That will leave no money for infrastructure development, provision of subsidies and development of a market.
Second, all parties are in principle agreed that feudalism should be abolished. But feudals are also those who have dual relations with both the land and some other occupation; for instance if a person sells land to buy houses in Kathmandu and then rents out those houses, he is also a feudal. The other parliamentary parties agree that feudalism should be ended, but they do not agree that the resources that enable the survival of feudals should be cut off. In the new structure, a person shouldn’t be allowed to stay in Kathmandu, but live off the produce of his land in the village. There are many such absentee landlords.
So all land should be in the hands of the tiller. And no compensation should be provided to the current landowners.
Q: Are there any disagreements with Adivasis-Janajatis regarding land reform?
Roka: The local inhabitants of an area should have first rights to resources on the territory on which they live. We plan to include a clause in the preamble of the constitution that states: “Regarding land reform or the use of natural resources, the first right of use of Adivasi-Janajatis and local inhabitants will be guaranteed.” The phrase “exemptive right” was not acceptable to the Nepali Congress or the UML so we used the phrase “first right.” This does not mean that other people will have no rights at all. After the Janajatis and locals are provided with what they need, those from other areas will have the right to use and develop the resources in the area.
So its not that Newars will be the only ones with rights in Kathmandu, or Limbus will have sole rights in Limbuwan. If that happens, it will be a return to the period that existed before feudalism. Adivasi Janajatis should be clear about the concept of land reform. The transformation in Nepal is not for establishing a large number of kings.
Q: What other issues is the Committee discussing?
Roka: There is the issue of the right over forests. This hasn’t been finalized. Will the right lie with the centre or the states? So far, the centre has been responsible. In the future, the responsibility for making laws for the management should lie with the centre; the responsibility for managing the forests should lie with the states.
There are three views on this. Some parties, the Madhesi parties in particular, argue that all power should lie with the state governments. Other parties such as the Nepali Congress and UML want everything to be completely centralized. The Maoists are more pragmatic, flexible and willing to reach a compromise.
Q: What kind of measures will be there to ensure linkages between regions?
Roka: The three areas — Tarai, Hills, Mountains — are deeply connected ecologically. Let’s take the example of water, for instance. Among the 22 districts of the Tarai, sufficient food is produced only in six. According to the current population growth, we will have to produce three times the food we are right now by 2015 if we are to fulfill the nation’s demands. But there are rivers that run across districts. In order to provide irrigation in the Tarai it will be necessary to establish irrigation channels in hill and mountain districts.
So it is necessary to create policies that take into account the ecological and economic linkages between regions. It is not enough to only demand rights to one’s identity and culture.
Q: Are you hopeful that the constitution will be drafted on schedule?
Roka: One reason why there hasn’t been able to be a better understanding among parties is because they still lack conceptual clarity. First, the political parties should have thought about the kind of federal system they wanted to adopt a long time ago: whether it is to be cooperative (like the Indian model — where the centre is much more powerful than the states), competitive (as in Germany or Canada — where the state have substantial power and compete with each other) or mixed. But the political parties did not even discuss this. Second, there should have been discussions about the model of state structure to adopt. The Westminster model has failed, it is clear. Political leaders should have talked about the future model from the very beginning. Third, there should have been discussions about the norms to be followed within a coalition government.
It is necessary to have broad understanding on these major issues. The way it still works is that political actors approach each issue as they come along; resolutions are always temporary and ad hoc.
There is also a conflict between classes. This is also responsible for the current polarisation.
http://www.nepalcaportal.org/EN/who-said-what/details.php?ID=101
The tiller should own the land
07/10/2009
Hari Roka, a Constituent Assembly (CA) member nominated by the Maoist party, is also a member of the CA’s Committee on the Distribution of Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Public Revenue. The Committee was recently in the news regarding disputes about land reform. Roka spoke about what issue were being discussed and what continued to sources of conflict between members of various parties.
Q: What are the Committee on the Distribution of Natural Resources, Financial Rights and Public Revenue’s primary responsibilities?
Roka: There are two parts to the work of our Committee. First, to create provisions for the management of natural resources in the federal structure. Second, to create provisions for managing financial rights and the distribution of revenue in the new state structure.
There are three aspects to the management of natural resources: they regard water, forests and land. Regarding land, 46 percent of families possess between 0.1 and 0.5 hectares of land. The average size of these families is 5.8 people. The size of the landholdings is therefore not sufficient to provide these families with a livelihood. So, we have prepared a framework according to which land reform should take place.
Q: What method of land reform have you decided to implement?
Roka: We studied the four models of land reform that have taken place. First, the kind undertaken by the Europeans and North Americans; second, what was undertaken in South America; third, the attempts by Socialist countries such as China and Russia; and fourth, the kind undertaken by the Koreans, Taiwanese and Japanese.
The Americans learnt from the Prussians. The landlords themselves institutionalized the wage system. So the feudals turned into capitalists. Gradually, land gradually became concentrated in the hands of capitalists and others were displaced. Some remained as wage labourers, others went to work in industries. The South Americans freed themselves from European colonization. But the big landlords kept control of the land. Now that socialist governments have come to power in 12 Latin American countries, they are in the process of undertaking land reform and redistribution, without providing compensation to the previous owners. In China and Russia, the state captured all land, and after that, according to the need of both the people and the state, prepared communes and cooperatives.
Land reform in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan was imposed by the Americans, as a tool to make communism less attractive to the population there. All land was taken by the government. The government then collected data on the nature and quality of land and of all families. Then it asked people what occupation they wanted to enter. Then the governments then redistributed land according to the needs of the family and the quality of the land that was being provided. This was a very effective method of land reform. In South Korea, for instance, 87 percent of people were in agriculture in the 1950s. Now, only 10 percent are. They understood that land reform did not simply mean redistribution, that it was necessary to provide seeds, fertilizer, to create a market and credit etc. Great growth took place in the agricultural sector as a result, and this created resources to invest in the industrial sector, setting the foundations for export-led growth.
We have thus come to the conclusion that the most suitable method of land reform for Nepal is the fourth one.
Q: The Maoists have a dispute with the Nepali Congress and other parties regarding whether to provide compensation to those whose lands will be taken or not.
Roka: The method of land reform that involves compensation is the World Bank’s model. It is meant to rescue the landlords. When the Maoists started capturing land and distributing it to farmers a number of years ago, the World Bank brought this compensation programme.
But we believe that no compensation should be provided. The Land Reform Commission led by Keshav Badal presented its report to the Manmohan Adhikari government nearly 15 years ago. Badal said that providing compensation in the process of land reform would cost Rs. 45 billion. Now, according to our calculations, it will cost the state more than Rs. 200 billion. If we do this, we will have to take loans from multilateral agencies or from bilateral donors. At the current time, almost 28 percent of the core budget goes towards paying previous loans in installments. If we borrow Rs. 200 billion, almost 60 percent of our core budget will go towards servicing loans. That will leave no money for infrastructure development, provision of subsidies and development of a market.
Second, all parties are in principle agreed that feudalism should be abolished. But feudals are also those who have dual relations with both the land and some other occupation; for instance if a person sells land to buy houses in Kathmandu and then rents out those houses, he is also a feudal. The other parliamentary parties agree that feudalism should be ended, but they do not agree that the resources that enable the survival of feudals should be cut off. In the new structure, a person shouldn’t be allowed to stay in Kathmandu, but live off the produce of his land in the village. There are many such absentee landlords.
So all land should be in the hands of the tiller. And no compensation should be provided to the current landowners.
Q: Are there any disagreements with Adivasis-Janajatis regarding land reform?
Roka: The local inhabitants of an area should have first rights to resources on the territory on which they live. We plan to include a clause in the preamble of the constitution that states: “Regarding land reform or the use of natural resources, the first right of use of Adivasi-Janajatis and local inhabitants will be guaranteed.” The phrase “exemptive right” was not acceptable to the Nepali Congress or the UML so we used the phrase “first right.” This does not mean that other people will have no rights at all. After the Janajatis and locals are provided with what they need, those from other areas will have the right to use and develop the resources in the area.
So its not that Newars will be the only ones with rights in Kathmandu, or Limbus will have sole rights in Limbuwan. If that happens, it will be a return to the period that existed before feudalism. Adivasi Janajatis should be clear about the concept of land reform. The transformation in Nepal is not for establishing a large number of kings.
Q: What other issues is the Committee discussing?
Roka: There is the issue of the right over forests. This hasn’t been finalized. Will the right lie with the centre or the states? So far, the centre has been responsible. In the future, the responsibility for making laws for the management should lie with the centre; the responsibility for managing the forests should lie with the states.
There are three views on this. Some parties, the Madhesi parties in particular, argue that all power should lie with the state governments. Other parties such as the Nepali Congress and UML want everything to be completely centralized. The Maoists are more pragmatic, flexible and willing to reach a compromise.
Q: What kind of measures will be there to ensure linkages between regions?
Roka: The three areas — Tarai, Hills, Mountains — are deeply connected ecologically. Let’s take the example of water, for instance. Among the 22 districts of the Tarai, sufficient food is produced only in six. According to the current population growth, we will have to produce three times the food we are right now by 2015 if we are to fulfill the nation’s demands. But there are rivers that run across districts. In order to provide irrigation in the Tarai it will be necessary to establish irrigation channels in hill and mountain districts.
So it is necessary to create policies that take into account the ecological and economic linkages between regions. It is not enough to only demand rights to one’s identity and culture.
Q: Are you hopeful that the constitution will be drafted on schedule?
Roka: One reason why there hasn’t been able to be a better understanding among parties is because they still lack conceptual clarity. First, the political parties should have thought about the kind of federal system they wanted to adopt a long time ago: whether it is to be cooperative (like the Indian model — where the centre is much more powerful than the states), competitive (as in Germany or Canada — where the state have substantial power and compete with each other) or mixed. But the political parties did not even discuss this. Second, there should have been discussions about the model of state structure to adopt. The Westminster model has failed, it is clear. Political leaders should have talked about the future model from the very beginning. Third, there should have been discussions about the norms to be followed within a coalition government.
It is necessary to have broad understanding on these major issues. The way it still works is that political actors approach each issue as they come along; resolutions are always temporary and ad hoc.
There is also a conflict between classes. This is also responsible for the current polarisation.
http://www.nepalcaportal.org/EN/who-said-what/details.php?ID=101