Following the ratification, the pressure for its application to all sectors of Nepali social, economic and political life has been mounting. In particular, this pressure is being reflected in the constitution through restructuring the federal provinces along ethnic lines.[break] In the context of Nepal, where the country itself is composed of more than 100 ethnic groups scattered all over the country all claiming themselves as indigenous, the application of the provisions of the convention has been highly controversial.
As self-identification has been prescribed to be the fundamental criterion for determining indigenous or tribal people, its haphazard application will be self-defeating and conflicts are bound to occur in great proportion in the country.
As a matter of fact, the kind of social, political and economic situation to which the convention relates to does not wholly fit into the Nepali context. There is no overwhelming majority of a particular ethnic community in the country and it is not a case of colonization from outsiders either.
Nepal presents a combination, not a subjugation of one over the other so far as the ethnic mosaic of this country consists of. The kind of grievances that have been raised by the unprivileged mass belonging to several ethnic groups are shared by all sections of the society across the board.
The social and economic deprivation can only be changed through policy reforms and real actions for development, certainly not by simply according untenable and conflict-prone rights. The signs of internal conflict and thereby degradation of all moral, social and national values have already been the experience of present day Nepal.
Unfortunately, ILO in Nepal seems to be fomenting partisan policy in the garb of promoting this convention. The local office of ILO has published Guidelines on convention 169.
This publication enjoys the message of good wishes from the minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of the government. It is the irony of our government machinery that one arm of the government does not know what the other arm is doing.
This guideline in page 20 has vehemently opposed the Melamchi Drinking Water Project by citing it as a case of injustice to the indigenous people. It has argued that the project has deprived the indigenous people of their rights, destroyed the environment and has adopted discriminatory behavior in paying compensation.
These accusations are totally biased and utterly wrong. In fact, the project has given a generous compensation package and has elaborate mitigation plan for any negative impact on the environment. It has all along adopted a participatory approach so far as public participation is concerned.
This sort of totally wrong, unwarranted and unacceptable statement from a specialized agency of the UN certainly erodes its credibility. The government must take a strong exception to this intrusive activity of ILO and ask it to remain within its bounds. Melamchi is a high priority project.
The Government of Nepal, the multilateral agencies like the Asian Development Bank and other donors are committed to this project and the people of Nepal desperately need it. ILO has no mandate to advocate against the project.
Similarly, the publication has criticized the policy of the government adopted more than 50 years ago to nationalize the different kinds of forests and bring them under the umbrella of the government for better and equitable use and for getting rid of the exploitation of common people by the feudal lords.
Instead of appreciating the various initiations that the country has taken in forest management such as community forestry, national park and wildlife conservation, etc, the publication indirectly instigates the so-called indigenous population to act against these good initiatives.
In doing so, it has not hesitated even to misinterpret the convention.
The publication has mischievously omitted Articles 15, 34 and 35 of the convention in its guidelines.
Article 15 of the convention defines the rights of the state over the natural resources and its relation to the rights of the indigenous people. Clearly, the convention has recognized the superiority of the government’s right vis-à-vis the rights of the indigenous people.
The convention does not provide veto right to any community against any project initiated by the government for the benefit of the people and the country. According to its Article 34 and 35, the convention is to be subservient to the law of the country and it is to be made applicable in a flexible manner in the context of a particular country’s situation. The rights of the indigenous people as enshrined in the convention are not sacrosanct.
The publication thus is aimed to propagate communal and ethnic struggle, scuttle the development projects and encourage people to put untenable demands against the government and halt the developmental projects. It is time now for the government to call in question these types of foreign agencies who have so far been operating in their own way taking advantage of the soft nature of our governance.
Writer is former chief commissioner of CIAA
Related story
ILO urged to launch result-oriented projects in Nepal
