South Asian leaders in Colombo are going to make another "historic" declaration at the 15th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit scheduled for 2-3 August. This year the Summit will be held amid two political uncertainties in the region: formation of a new government in Nepal and a week after Indian prime minister won the no-trust vote over the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. For two days leaders will try to hold off bilateral differences and focus on removing trade policy barriers in favor of intra-regional trade.
With the transition from SAARC Preferential Trading Agreement (SAPTA) to South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), the first step toward regional economic integration is complete. By 2012 the member-states, other than the four Least Developed Countries -- Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives and Nepal -- will reduce their duty to zero percent. These LDCs have until 2015 to fulfill this commitment.
India has a crucial role in realizing the SAARC ideals as it shares borders with all member-countries. A cordial bilateral relationship, especially between India and Pakistan, should build up trust toward regional cooperation. The current Indo-Pak trade under the Most Favored Nation status remains at below $2 billion, but experts talk of a $12 billion potential.
However, the ongoing hostility has thwarted prospects of any regional integration including cancellation of several summits.
India's considerable business interest in the region remains unexplored due to fragile political landscape in the sub-continent. Investors like the Tata Group are keen on setting up steel, fertilizer and power plants in Bangladesh that aims to bolster the economy of India's Northeastern states benefiting 40 million people. Such capital investments and enhanced commercial activities can bring down trade imbalance of $100 million exports and $2 billion imports.
Despite volatile political climate, Nepal opened up its market by recently awarding a 300 megawatt hydro-electric contract to GMR Energy, an Indian infrastructure company. However, the soon-to-be-formed government must create conducive environment for foreign investors. Two multinational subsidiaries, Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive, closed their operation due to insecurity. Since SAFTA also does not accommodate Indo-US ventures, and is thus ineligible for duty-free access, the Summit has a serious business to do.
The Summit should work toward goodwill measures in the interest of the region by increasing people-to-people contact as promised in recent declarations. Increasing physical connectivity, liberalizing visas for education, media and medical purposes are as important as duty-free access to goods. More specific cooperation can be reached in the sub-regional "growth quadrangle" comprising Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal for power and water sharing.
Another contentious issue is cross-border terrorism. While India does not want any categorization of terrorism, Pakistan maintains some acts are "freedom struggles." Since both the countries have rejected the role of the United Nations in dealing with the Kashmir issue, the call for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism among member- nations remains significant. India now seems to favor the UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) to deal with terrorism.
Although the difference in approach over terrorism exists between the two arch-rivals, other bilateral issues in the region should not build further acrimony. Only recently India provided a soft-loan of $1 billion to Sri Lanka to upgrade its defense capabilities, and the two nations may ink a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) on the margins of the Summit. India is further planning a multilateral cooperation to set up gas pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Therefore, a regional consensus to contain terrorism and violence is as much important for big countries as it is in the economic and social interest of the smaller nations.
In addition to goodwill achievements, such as setting up of the South Asian University and agreement on SAARC model village, the Summit has to work toward a functioning South Asian Customs Union and operationalization of the SAARC Development Fund. The Intergovernmental Agreement on establishing the SAARC Food Bank is a credible move in dealing with the food security. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also put this agenda at the forefront, besides climate and fuel crises.
SAARC observer-countries have shown immense interests in the development of the region. The Chinese proposal for a China-South Asia Business Forum and SAARC-Japan Special Fund could actually complement the intra-regional development vision. The Summit should be able to accommodate trans-SAARC issues beyond rhetoric.
To achieve all these, an effort in "building of trust and understanding" among member-states has been long due for the realization of a South Asian economic union.
Originally published on The Kathmandu Post.
Showing posts with label The Kathmandu Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Kathmandu Post. Show all posts
July 30, 2008
July 07, 2006
KU leadership vs transparency
The recent spate of write-ups on Kathmandu University (KU) may have revealed an unexpected side of an institution that people thought was doing well. When one explores the excessive privation of a public institution that receives minimal government funding, the current criticism raised on improper functioning apparently seems invalid and targeted only against those who have adorned the image of educational reformists.
What many, both insiders and outsiders, feel is that KU's sacrosanct image can only be maintained if the present leadership is allowed absolute say in the administration and management of the university affairs. But what many do not know is the fact that the frontliners of KU have metamorphosed to become autocratic, unaccommodating and partisan. Therefore, if the policies come under the public hammer, the leadership alone must be held accountable; if the stakeholders of the university organ --- the students, teaching community, and the administrative staff --- complain about mismanagement and unprofessionalism, the leadership cannot make arbitrary arrangements to come clean; if the driving force of the university unite to point out the irregularities and propose amendments, the leadership must make way to the new breed; if the performance appraisal system has been replaced by nepotism and favoritism, the leadership must justify how free opportunity and evaluation system works.
KU needs to develop a leadership mechanism that does not look upon an individual alone, but functions on the support of all the stakeholders. KU needs to go through a cleansing process before any reformation takes place. KU needs to welcome other national and international intellectuals to assume leadership and not depend upon the disingenuous coterie.
Kathmandu University Professors' Association (KUPA) was formed and registered in the DAO, Kathmandu, last month. It is also the latest member of a larger federation -- the Nepal University Teachers' Association. However, it will take some time before the KU authorities take this new teachers' body in a positive vein. A narrow view put forward about the nature of such organization is that it will invite "politics" and KU will no longer remain as "reputed" as today! One must distinguish between the idea of politics and politicking. If KUPA proposes a participatory model of administration, if it wants the university bosses to be accountable and fair, if it upholds a check and balance mechanism, if it proclaims to protect the general welfare of the staff and wants to work collaboratively with the university, then KUPA is certainly a political force from within. And that is what it should intend to remain.
KUPA cannot be the sole answer to the ills that KU faces, but a proper representative body will position itself to revitalize the positive traits necessary of an institution. With the formation of this body, the majority already feel that their lost honor is restored and that the body will become a formidable force in bringing the derailed university management to the right track. Though this body will take some time to earn its gravity, the fallout of demeaning the unity of such a force may be ruinous to KU. It is but natural that students are concerned about the recent turn of events. But, can one concentrate in a usual manner when unusual circumstances disturb the academic atmosphere?
Unlike other public institutions in Nepal, KU has a credible percentage of young professionals. The spirit of this vibrancy should be reflected in the executive bodies that are formed in the university. Young people expect professional mentoring from those who have worked to build an institution. The university bosses have already come under sharp criticism for downplaying the contributions of other entities in the system. Independent members of KU resent when the leadership alone is acknowledged for what the university has achieved. How will an able academic community react if its potentials are continuously undermined and its achievements unacknowledged?
Everybody in an organization expects to upgrade one's portfolio, but the current scenario defeats the idea of proper delegation. A successful management practice is to entrust responsibilities and let the person do the tasks independently. When no authentic delegation has ever taken place in an esteemed institution, how can future leadership be available inside KU quarters? Individualistic leadership has never prepared others for higher roles, and this phenomenon is already evident here. KU is facing a leadership crisis. KU needs a better vision. But to start, KU has to shed the culture of adhocism.
At this time of crisis, insiders are deliberating on what values does this institution run. Besides being a popular center for learning, has it been successful in imparting values that generate decent conduct? How high is the integrity of a leader whose personal ambition supersedes institutional priorities? Is it not irrational that an institution holds an improved image and the staff remain impoverished? How should the students react if they do not get the quality they have been promised? Will modern society accept that policy-making and resource allocation are the prerogative of handful executives? What is the basis on which some development activities take precedence over the other? The present leadership has failed to work towards developing an institutional character of a public institution.
A usual practice in such circumstances of failure is to give up one's office and make way for new ideas. But if the leadership remains adamant the office invites the wrath of a rebellious force bringing unwarranted discredit to the institution. KU leaders only need to make a choice -- respect the sentiments of the stakeholders and exit in honor. Any obstinate step leading to confrontation will only be detrimental to the interests of the students, staff and the community.
As KUPA is working to rectify the functioning of the university, several anonymous entities are seen to be channelized to defeat the unified voice. Instead of targeting people at the personal level and engaging in conspiracy, all well-wishers must dare to show up for open debate. Institutional issues can be discussed without mud slinging. Perhaps the priviligenstia of the university can do a little service by behaving modestly and remaining apologetic for all the undue favours they have received instead of instigating others to bring disgrace to the individuals and the institution.
Originally published by The Kathmandu Post.
What many, both insiders and outsiders, feel is that KU's sacrosanct image can only be maintained if the present leadership is allowed absolute say in the administration and management of the university affairs. But what many do not know is the fact that the frontliners of KU have metamorphosed to become autocratic, unaccommodating and partisan. Therefore, if the policies come under the public hammer, the leadership alone must be held accountable; if the stakeholders of the university organ --- the students, teaching community, and the administrative staff --- complain about mismanagement and unprofessionalism, the leadership cannot make arbitrary arrangements to come clean; if the driving force of the university unite to point out the irregularities and propose amendments, the leadership must make way to the new breed; if the performance appraisal system has been replaced by nepotism and favoritism, the leadership must justify how free opportunity and evaluation system works.
KU needs to develop a leadership mechanism that does not look upon an individual alone, but functions on the support of all the stakeholders. KU needs to go through a cleansing process before any reformation takes place. KU needs to welcome other national and international intellectuals to assume leadership and not depend upon the disingenuous coterie.
Kathmandu University Professors' Association (KUPA) was formed and registered in the DAO, Kathmandu, last month. It is also the latest member of a larger federation -- the Nepal University Teachers' Association. However, it will take some time before the KU authorities take this new teachers' body in a positive vein. A narrow view put forward about the nature of such organization is that it will invite "politics" and KU will no longer remain as "reputed" as today! One must distinguish between the idea of politics and politicking. If KUPA proposes a participatory model of administration, if it wants the university bosses to be accountable and fair, if it upholds a check and balance mechanism, if it proclaims to protect the general welfare of the staff and wants to work collaboratively with the university, then KUPA is certainly a political force from within. And that is what it should intend to remain.
KUPA cannot be the sole answer to the ills that KU faces, but a proper representative body will position itself to revitalize the positive traits necessary of an institution. With the formation of this body, the majority already feel that their lost honor is restored and that the body will become a formidable force in bringing the derailed university management to the right track. Though this body will take some time to earn its gravity, the fallout of demeaning the unity of such a force may be ruinous to KU. It is but natural that students are concerned about the recent turn of events. But, can one concentrate in a usual manner when unusual circumstances disturb the academic atmosphere?
Unlike other public institutions in Nepal, KU has a credible percentage of young professionals. The spirit of this vibrancy should be reflected in the executive bodies that are formed in the university. Young people expect professional mentoring from those who have worked to build an institution. The university bosses have already come under sharp criticism for downplaying the contributions of other entities in the system. Independent members of KU resent when the leadership alone is acknowledged for what the university has achieved. How will an able academic community react if its potentials are continuously undermined and its achievements unacknowledged?
Everybody in an organization expects to upgrade one's portfolio, but the current scenario defeats the idea of proper delegation. A successful management practice is to entrust responsibilities and let the person do the tasks independently. When no authentic delegation has ever taken place in an esteemed institution, how can future leadership be available inside KU quarters? Individualistic leadership has never prepared others for higher roles, and this phenomenon is already evident here. KU is facing a leadership crisis. KU needs a better vision. But to start, KU has to shed the culture of adhocism.
At this time of crisis, insiders are deliberating on what values does this institution run. Besides being a popular center for learning, has it been successful in imparting values that generate decent conduct? How high is the integrity of a leader whose personal ambition supersedes institutional priorities? Is it not irrational that an institution holds an improved image and the staff remain impoverished? How should the students react if they do not get the quality they have been promised? Will modern society accept that policy-making and resource allocation are the prerogative of handful executives? What is the basis on which some development activities take precedence over the other? The present leadership has failed to work towards developing an institutional character of a public institution.
A usual practice in such circumstances of failure is to give up one's office and make way for new ideas. But if the leadership remains adamant the office invites the wrath of a rebellious force bringing unwarranted discredit to the institution. KU leaders only need to make a choice -- respect the sentiments of the stakeholders and exit in honor. Any obstinate step leading to confrontation will only be detrimental to the interests of the students, staff and the community.
As KUPA is working to rectify the functioning of the university, several anonymous entities are seen to be channelized to defeat the unified voice. Instead of targeting people at the personal level and engaging in conspiracy, all well-wishers must dare to show up for open debate. Institutional issues can be discussed without mud slinging. Perhaps the priviligenstia of the university can do a little service by behaving modestly and remaining apologetic for all the undue favours they have received instead of instigating others to bring disgrace to the individuals and the institution.
Originally published by The Kathmandu Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
