text:
Shifting Borders of Nepal
Eurasia Border Review, Volume-4, No-2, Fall 2013
Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
The Natural Environment and the Shifting Borders of Nepal
Buddhi N. Shrestha*
Nepal is bordered to the north by China and to the south, east and west by India. Nepal shares a 1,439 kilometer border with China with natural obstruction whereas there is a 1,880 kilometer long border with India that is open and porous. There is no natural obstacle on the southern border of Nepal. But it is an extension of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Due to the non-existence of a natural barrier, some spots on the southern border of Nepal have shifted, where boundary markers have gone missing and the no-man's land is obscured. It has affected the social relationship between the inhabitants of the two frontiers. Voices have been raised often. Sometimes there are conflicts and violence against neighbours, including the staging of demonstrations and the shouting of slogans. Over time, the inhabitants of both the sides have negotiated to maintain peace and harmony by embracing and exchanging roses with each other. This story has repeated itself along the frontier. In such a situation, it is necessary to maintain the international boundary intact with vigilance from both sides. A joint mechanism should be established to prevent border-shifting activities from either side of the border.
This paper attempts to explain and analyze the situation behind the shifting of Nepal's international boundary. It tries to provide some stories and the prime one is political. It examines the effects of border dispute resolution and cross-border migration, especially policy preferences towards Chinese migration. Findings have implications for research on border and inter-group relations, as the analysis supports earlier research. Current information has been collected from daily and weekly newspapers and journals and past incidents have been referred to from relevant books.
The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal is a landlocked sovereign state located in South Asia. It is situated between two emerging Asian giants, India and China. The frontier of Nepal is surrounded in its south, east and west by India; and in the north by China. Nepal runs from east to west, resembling an elongated rectangle.
The Himalayan Range, as a natural wall, is situated between Nepal and China. But there are neither natural walls nor man-made fences along the Indo-Nepal border. It is the flat Indo-Gangetic Plain that extends from India towards the Nepalese frontier. This porous borderline, unhindered by barriers, has often shifted due to human activity, changes in the river course and political reasons. It has challenged the identity of Nepal at local and national levels.
When we look at the historical background of the boundary of Nepal, it was Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great who initiated the unification of various small kingdoms and principalities of the Himalayan region in 1745. After his conquest of the Kathmandu Valley, he unified other smaller countries south of the valley to keep out of the influence and control of the British. After his kingdom spread out from north to south, he made Kantipur the capital of his expanded country, and called it "Nepal" instead of Gorkha. As a result, Prithvi Narayan Shah formally established Nepal as a Himalayan State and thus, Nepal was born on 17 November 1769.1
After the death of Prithvi Narayan Shah, his descendants Bahadur Shah and Rajendra Laxmi continued the unification movement, extending Nepal's border from the Tista River in the east to Kangra in the west in 1806. Similarly, Nepal was extended up to the confluence of the Gandak and Ganges rivers to the south; and to Shigatshe and Tashilhunpo Gomba (monastery) across the Himalayas to the north, which now falls in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of China. That was called the "Greater Nepal."2
In the course of time, British India began not to like Nepal as a unified and integrated country. So there were some conflicts in the territory between Nepal and British India. As a result, there was the Anglo-Gurkha War (1814-1816). In essence, the Anglo-Gurkha War was primarily a struggle over how to
disentangle these complex relationships and the underlying visions of territory the two states adhered to. And it is this colonial encounter and the subsequent defeat of Gorkha that resulted in the territorial delineation of most of Nepal's Tarai as we know it today.3 Because of time, situation, environment and activities of the past, the borderline has shifted to the Mechi River in the east, the Mahakali River in the west, the watershed of the Himalayan Range in the north, and to the plains of the Tarai in the south. This is the history of the territory of present-day Nepal.
Case Study of Shifting Borders:
Nepal-China
China is Nepal's northern neighbour. Nepal has had relations with Tibet that date back thousands of years, before the unification of Nepal. Although relations between Nepal and Tibet go back centuries, there were of course antagonisms and aggressions. But those hostilities were basically over trade, economic and monetary reasons. Attacks and counterattacks on each other's territory had resulted in some changes in the border. During those wars, Gorkhali had expanded their territory inside Tibet near Lhasa.
Actually, the Tibetans wanted to expand trade to India through Nepal. Responding to Tibet's proposal as an opportunity, Nepal sent a delegation to Khasa of Tibet located in the northeast of Kathmandu. Representatives of the two countries signed a trade agreement at Khasa on 5 September 1775. This trade agreement is known as the Khasa Agreement, which included a provision that left the previous border unchanged. The treaty aimed to strengthen the border between the two countries.
During the regency of Bahadur Shah, he sent a protest letter to the Tibetan government expressing dissatisfaction with them for not complying fully with the terms and conditions of the trade treaty. In their reply the Tibetan government instead, made several accusations against Nepal. Also Tibet planned to attack on the pretext that Nepal had given asylum to Shyamarpa Lama who had fled to Nepal from Tibet. So the environment was not congenial between the two countries.
In the summer of 1788, Nepal sent Gorkha troops under the joint command of Damodar Pande and Bam Shah to attack Tibet. The Nepali troops led by Damodar Pandey attacked Tibet. The Tibetans could not resist, and the Nepali troops pushed forward through Rasuwagadhi and Gorkha to the north capturing trekking passes like Kerung and Kuti and expanded Nepal's border northward and also pushed up to Sigatsche (Tashilhunpo) which is located in the southwest of Lhasa. But the Tibetans proposed a treaty thinking that the Nepalese troops would be at Lhasa. There were several rounds of talks, and finally, Nepal and Tibet entered into an agreement on 2 June 1789, which was mediated by the Chinese representatives. This agreement is known as the Kerung Agreement. The agreement contracted Nepal's territory to Rasuwagadhi.4
In the course of time, Tibet began to believe that the Kerung Agreement was controversial and proposed that it should be amended. They said that the treaty was still not ratified by the Lhasa palace. On the other hand, they also felt that Nepal might not agree to their reasoning and could carry out an attack again; so they started preparing for war. Nepal became suspicious. These events led to another war between Nepal and Tibet.
Then Nepal sent its forces from two sides to attack Tibet on 6 August 1791. The Nepalese forces pushed on, capturing Digarcha, the capital of Tashi Lama. In this way Nepal's border expanded to Sigatsche and Tashilhunpo. In this context, Tibet asked China for military help. The Chinese forces arrived in Lhasa to help the Tibetans. The Chinese forces attacked the Nepalese and drove the Nepalese forces back from the expanded territory. The Chinese troops pushed further south and reached just 30 kilometers north of Kathmandu, the capital city. But despite several efforts, the Chinese troops failed to cross the Betrawoti River. Taking this opportunity, the Nepalese troops launched a counter-attack upon the Chinese troops with additional forces. The Chinese side suffered heavy casualties. Weary and tired, the Chinese wanted to end the war and preferred a treaty. Talks were held between the two sides, and an agreement was reached on 5 October 1792, bringing the war to an end. This agreement is known as the Nepal-Tibet Treaty (Betrawoti Treaty) of 1792.5
Under the treaty, the border of Nepal was shifted back to the line north of Rasuwagadhi. In this way, the Betrawoti Treaty tried to keep Nepal's northern border stable under the impartiality and fairness of China that made the present border of Nepal. Likewise, the Tibetan government was disinclined to provide security, under the Betrawoti treaty, to Nepali traders living and doing business in Tibet. By 1854, differences between the governments of Nepal and Tibet further widened. This was coupled with border disputes. Nepal handed over the pastureland south of Khasa to Tibetans for cattle grazing based on annual contracts. But the Tibetans made settlements there and began collecting land tax from them. Tibetans intended to include the land within their territory. To materialize their intentions, the Tibetans dug 80 feet wide trenches at different segments one mile south of the Nepalese border and began claiming that the land belonged to them. Knowing about the nuisances of their situation, Prime Minister Jung Bahadur sent officials to recoup the land tax collected by the Tibetans, to restore Nepal's claim to the territory and to collect taxes. Tibetans did not accept Nepal's claim that they had encroached upon Nepalese territory and had shifted the borderline. However, Nepal was not satisfied, and, as a result, another war between Nepal and Tibet erupted.
In the meantime, Nepal asked Tibet to return the Kerung and Kuti areas that were previously under Nepal's control; and also to hand over the Taklakot area in the north of Darchula along the route to Lake Manasarovar. The Tibetan government responded, but did not mention anything about the demand raised by Nepal. Failing to get a clear reply, Nepal formally declared war against Tibet on 6 March 1855. Under the military plan, Nepalese troops attacked Tibet from the north and west, and pushed northward, capturing the Kerung, Digree, and Jhungagadhi areas. Nepalese forces that marched northeast captured Khasa and Kuti in the north of Sindhupalchowk on 3 April 1855, and pushed farther north to Sunagampa and remained there.
The Nepalese had remained for eight months defending the newly conquered territories. But a combined force of the Tibetans and Chinese carried out a surprise attack at Kuti on the night of 5 November 1855. The Nepalese were defeated. In the meantime, after the commander of the Nepali forces who had withdrawn from Kuti requested additional troops from Kathmandu, the reinvigorated Nepalese troops attacked Kuti from three sides. Then Kuti was restored again within Nepalese territory.
When the Nepalese troops achieved success in all sectors, the Tibetans proposed peace talks at the border. Finally, both sides agreed to resume the peace talks, and negotiations were held at the Thapathali Palace in Kathmandu. Both sides then reached an agreement for a treaty, and a treaty was signed on 24 March 1856. The treaty is known as Nepal-Tibet Peace Treaty, but is also called as the Thapathali Treaty. This contracted Nepal's border with Bhairablangur Himal and Nepal's border was fixed at Tatopani, which is also the present-day border of Nepal.6
In this way, by the time of the Thapathali Treaty, Nepal's northern border had expanded and contracted to and from the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of China and finally it was shifted to the Himalayan Range. At that time, the majority of the Himalayan Range had remained within the Nepalese frontier, and remained so for nearly a century. All of these events and incidents show that Nepal's northern border shifted seven times within a period of eighty-one years.
Boundary Delimitation
The relation between Nepal and China strengthened after Tibet became an autonomous region of China. To enhance the relationship further, it was agreed that the formal settlement of the boundary between China and Nepal was of fundamental importance to the peoples of the two countries. It was believed that the formal delimitation of the entire boundary and its consolidation as a boundary of peace and friendship not only would constitute a milestone in the further development of friendly relations between Nepal and China, but also would make a contribution towards strengthening peace in Asia and the world. Both governments agreed to delineate and demarcate the customary boundary line in a scientific way.
The Nepal-China Boundary Agreement was made on 21 March 1960. After both sides finalized the details, the Boundary Treaty was made on 5 October 1961. The King of Nepal and the Chairman of the People's Republic of China signed the treaty, after the physical boundary line was delineated.7 Then the actual boundary line was demarcated physically. During the joint boundary demarcation on the Sino-Nepal borderline there were disputes, conflicts, debates, controversies, claims and counter-claims in 32 places, including the question of Mount Everest (Sagarmatha).
It is commendable that all disputes, claims and counter-claims were settled in accordance with the principles of equality, mutual benefit, friendship, mutual understanding and accommodation. Besides, this settlement was adopted by the parties, following the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, and in the spirit of fairness, reasonableness, mutual understanding and most importantly respecting each other as equals in the international arena. Accordingly, all issues, except Mount Everest (Sagarmatha) had been settled by the Joint Boundary Committee. Regarding the question of Mount Everest, the dispute was settled, and the visiting Prime Minister Chou En-Lai made a statement in Kathmandu on 28 April 1960 that "Mount Everest belongs to Nepal."8
Boundary Demarcation
The demarcation of territory was made according to the treaty. Joint survey teams were formed to carry out border surveys and they started to erect permanent pillars and markers from 21 June 1962 at different points along the border.
Under the treaty, the border areas have been adjusted according to its traditional uses, possessions and convenience. This adjustment was made on the basis of "give and take" and the inclusion of some pastureland within Nepalese territory. With this principle, Nepal had given some 1,836 square kilometers of land to China, while China had given Nepal 2,139 square kilometers, adding 302.75 square kilometers of Chinese territory into Nepal.9 This is, hopefully, the last border shifting between Nepal and China.
In connection to the demarcation of the boundary with the watershed principle, there were some problems of cross-holding occupation. For example, when agricultural land and pasturelands owned by a citizen of one country falls on the other side of the border, there was a question of citizenship of that owner. To solve this problem, the owners were given a choice of nationality.
The joint teams demarcated and established pillars and markers, specified serial numbers 1 to 79 from west to east. Among them, there were 48 larger and 31 smaller-sized pillars. In addition, they had established 20 offset pillars, where there were possibilities of disappearance of main pillars due to natural circumstances, so that the total number of pillars and markers constructed reached 99 in total. The total length of the demarcated borderline was delineated as 1,439.18 kilometers. Erections of border pillars were completed within a year without making any discrepancy in words and actions.
The boundary treaty signed on 5 October 1961 determined the borderline in a formal and scientific manner, and was used following the traditions and conveniences of Nepal and the TAR of China. The treaty also resolved minor scuffles that were left by history, giving rise to the borderline becoming a symbol of peace and friendship. After signing the treaty, officials of both countries expressed satisfaction for resolving once and for all the problems that had remained for a long time. It was also felt that the treaty made a great contribution to the future generations of both countries.10
The northern borderline of Nepal has been fixed at almost the watershed of the Himalayan Range; as the northern border consists of many Himalayan peaks, the borderline goes through mountains, passes, deuralis (terminal points of up mountain), gorges and the pasturelands. Finally, the Nepal-China boundary protocol was signed on 20 January 1963. It was also mentioned in the protocol that there would be joint inspections of the entire length of the border by teams comprised of representatives from both countries every five years, but inspections may be postponed whenever agreed upon by both parties.
To renew the protocol, the border was jointly inspected and the damaged pillars were maintained and repaired. After completing all the formalities, the boundary protocol was renewed on 20 November 1979. In the same way, the third protocol was renewed on 6 December 1988. To formulate the fourth and last protocol, joint inspection and border survey mapping were started on 9 May 2005. The joint teams inspected, repaired and maintained a total of 99 pillars and markers. All the technical works, including the preparation of digital strip-maps have been completed. It has prepared 57 sheets of border maps based on GPS technology. But, minor issues remain to be tackled. Regarding boundary marker number 57, it was found slightly placed inside Nepal. It is a controversy concerning about 6 hectares of land. Therefore, a joint technical boundary committee meeting, which will prepare the fourth boundary protocol, is currently on hold.
Nepal-India
Now we come to the case study concerning the southern boundary of Nepal. Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great had started to unify 56 small kingdoms and principalities into the strong Himalayan State of Nepal in 1769. His successors completed the unification campaign and the territory of Nepal was extended from Tista to Kangra as Greater Nepal by 1806. In those days, the British, who had entered into India with the intention of doing business there, were ruling India. Probably not liking the rise of Nepal, they began to turn their eyes towards Nepal. The British East India Company government was looking for any opportunity to expand trade to Tibet. But, since the border of the then Kingdom of Nepal had extended west to east covering the northern frontier of British India, Indian businessmen did not have direct access to Tibet. All easy access transit points to enter into Tibet from India were within the borders of Nepal. The British did not see any way to fulfill their wish to establish trade with Tibet through Nepal, except through military force. So they raised the issue of the boundary dispute of the Seuraj and Butawal areas of Nepal as a pretext for war. The East India Company sought to threaten Nepal with war.
The British sent a letter to Nepal in March 1814, ordering them to abandon their occupation of the territory of Seuraj and Butawal. If Nepal did not send back a satisfactory reply within 25 days, they would take these places by force. However, Nepal did not respond, and Lord Hastings officially declared war against Nepal on 1 November 1814. Then a dreadful war between the Gorkhali and the British army took place. Many fighters on both sides lost their lives during the war. In the meantime, the British proposed a treaty and the Nepalese government was also ready to negotiate peace terms. Finally, a treaty of peace and friendship was drafted and sent to Nepal by the East India Company on 2 December 1815. Nepal signed the treaty on 4 March 1816 at Sugauli. The Anglo-Nepal War was now over.
This treaty became known as the "Treaty of Sugauli" (1816). It was mentioned in the articles of the treaty that Nepal would have to give up the claim on all the territories that had become a matter of dispute before that war, accept the authority of the Company Government over the Tarai (plain area) across the Tista River in the east, and to Satlaj and Kangra in the west.11 This treaty largely shrunk the border of Nepal to the Mechi River in the east and the Mahakali River in the west. The foothills of the Siwalik Range represented the southern border of Nepal with India. As a result, one-third of Nepal's territory was chipped off.
In fact, the Treaty of Sugauli favoured the East India Company, while Nepal suffered a heavy loss of territory. Nepal was highly dissatisfied to lose a large chunk of land from Mechi to Tista, where there was no war. So, to pacify Nepal and as an indemnity, the Supplementary Boundary Treaty was made on 11 December 1816 which restored to Nepal the Tarai lowlands from Koshi to the Rapti River. Following the signing of the Boundary Treaty on 15 November 1860, as a reward for putting down the Sepoy Mutiny in India, British India returned the ceded western Tarai lowlands of Nepal from the Rapti to Mahakali as new territory (Naya Muluk).
The Treaty of Sugauli (1816) and Supplementary Treaty (1816) provide the bases for the delineation and demarcation of the eastern, western and a portion of the southern border of Nepal, even though the Boundary Treaty (1860) implied the southwestern portion, as the restoration of Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur districts as new territory. And this became the boundary of present-day Nepal. It could be said that Nepal's southern boundary line expanded and shifted four times within a period of fifty-one years.
After the restoration of the lowlands, the southern border of Nepal with India now runs through fertile plains, jungles, rivers and settlements as well. In the east there are the Mechi River and the watershed of the Singhalila Range with hills and hillocks comprising the border. In the west, the Mahakali River runs along the border between Nepal and India.
It is interesting to mention that even after the Sugauli Treaty, there were disputes and differences at various places. But following the signing of the Supplementary Boundary Treaty, it was envisaged that such disputes would be settled with mutual understanding on the basis of exchanges of territory of equal size. It further says, as it is impossible to establish desirable limits between the two states without a survey, it would be expedient that commissioners be appointed on both sides for the purpose of arranging in concert a well defined boundary on the basis of the preceding terms, and of establishing a straight line in the frontier, with a view to distinctly separate the respective territories of the British government to the south and of Nepal to the north. In case any indentations occur that threaten to destroy the even tenor of the line, the commissioners should affect an exchange of lands so interfering on principles of clear reciprocity.12
Additionally, there were also provisions to exchange any portion that jot in or out of the straight line on the principle of clarity and mutuality. They agreed that if the land of any individual fell across the boundary line, the issue would be put before the governments of the two countries to solve the dispute. The commissioners were also given the authority to make agreements and to make exchanges of such land to allow the landowners to remain within their previous territory. It was also agreed to carry out surveys to establish border markers, and to exchange documents showing borderlines approved by both the governments.
The border demarcation work between Nepal and India was started in the spirit of the Treaty of Sugauli. Surveying and demarcation of the border with the erection of pillars had been started just after the monsoon season of 1816. The boundary line between the two countries was surveyed and demarcated from 1816 to 1860; from 1882 to 1885; in 1906; and from 1940 to 1941. This process divided it into nine different sectors with the erection of 913 boundary pillars.
During demarcation, Nepal and the East India Company government had disputes at several places over the border. For example, it was not clear whether the borderline should be the top ridge or the southern or the northern foothills of the Chure Range. In this regard, disputes had erupted in the area from Dunduwa Range of Dang to Arra Nala and Taal Bagoda in 1817. Similarly, there was a dispute about the ownership of Antu Danda of Ilam in 1825. There was also a dispute in 1838 over whether the Mechi River originated from the northeast or the northwest.13 There was also a "mine- and-yours" controversy regarding the border areas adjoining with Tirhut and Sarun districts of India. In 1840, there were claims and counter-claims about the ownership of several villages and settlements of the Ramnagar area.14
The above-mentioned examples illustrate that there were disputes about the border just after the Treaty of Sugauli, which showed Nepal's disenchantment with the treaty. Disputes in several areas had been settled, but in so many other places the disputes and conflicts lingered.
During demarcation from 1816 to 1906, border pillars had been placed at a distance of one to 2.5 kilometres according to the terrain. Strip maps were prepared in connection to the border demarcation. Some segments of the borderline zigzagged, some formed triangle-shaped sharp lines, while others bent at acute angle. But no sufficient boundary markers were erected on these winding/bending lines and river courses. So the actual line of demarcation was obscure in some segments. A no-man's land with a ten-yard width (Das Gaja) on both sides was not maintained in those areas. This was the cause of future disputes and conflicts in some spots.
Over time, portions of Charkoshe Jhadi (a dense forest) along the Tarai plain border strip were cleared to provide settlements for the hill people. Besides, some border rivers changed course during the monsoon flood season, eroding the boundary pillars. This further obscured the border, increasing the probability of the encroachment of the adjoining densely populated frontier of India. At that time, there was population pressure in Indian settlements, especially in Bihar. So the adjoining Indian inhabitants started to migrate into the Nepalese frontier for their livelihood. These were some of the causes of the shifting border of southern Nepal.
In due time, the government of Nepal became aware of Indian migration into Nepalese territory, and formed an inspection team consisting of personnel from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and Land Survey Department. They inspected the border pillars, and supervised the conditions of the no-man's land during the dry seasons of 1965 to 1967. Finally, they submitted a report to the government mentioning that there was no clear demarcation in many portions of the border. Hundreds of boundary pillars went missing, and a considerable number of pillars and monuments were in a pitiable state, having been destroyed, dismantled or smashed. Additionally, many places in the no-man's land had been cultivated.
The Nepalese government realized that conditions in its lowland territory, consisting of the southern belt and a portion of the eastern and western segments, were in a deplorable condition. As this may cause future problems, Nepal moved diplomatically and held talks with India to formulate Nepal-India joint border inspection mechanisms to keep the border clear and intact. Talks went on for almost a decade, and only after long consultation and conversation did the two sides finally agree on 25 February 1981 to work jointly to clear and maintain their joint border. As a result, the Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee was formed in November 1981.
Since then, various minor issues have been resolved, subsidiary/additional pillars have been erected, and strip-maps of the resolved areas have been drawn. But the joint committee could not settle major issues of encroachment or disputed portions. In fact, the Joint Technical Committee (JTC) worked for 26 years and completed 97 percent of the boundary. The remaining 3 percent of the border in various spots was beyond their capacity. This unsettled portion of the border consists of the Kalapani-Limpiyadhura encroachment (17 km), Susta (24 km) and various other spots (15 km). There are encroachments, cross-holding occupation, disputes, conflicts, claims and counter-claims in 71 spots having approximately 606 square kilometers. The prominent areas have been identified as Kalapani-Limpiyadhura, Susta, the Mechi riverine area, Tanakpur, Sandakpur, Pashupatinagar, Hile, Thori, etc. The largest single chunk of encroachment is Kalapani-Limpiyadhura (370 km2) of the Darchula district and the smallest portion is Fatak (240 m2) in Pashupatinagar of the Ilam district. It could be said that the boundary treaty and the statement of delimitation are not clear. This has created doubt and suspicion about the mitigation of the boundary issue.
The JTC could not settle major issues of encroachment or disputed portions as there are unresolved issues in more than 71 places. The main issues regarding the disputed boundary with India are border encroachments, disputes on mostly cross-holding occupations, and divergent opinions on basic materials such as maps and old documents for demarcation. The other reason is the slackness in joint survey field teams and a lack of equal participation. Bernardo Michael commented, "Even today, the presence of boundary disputes between India and Nepal, clearly show that this project of drawing modern boundaries will always be an unfinished one, because human actions can never be fully constrained by lines drawn on a map."15
Reasons of Shifting the Border
Historically, the main reason for the shifting of Nepal's borders was due to economic activities during Nepal's expansion. During the eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, Nepal used to export foodstuffs like rice, ghee, and dry vegetables to Tibet. Even Tibet's monetary coin was minted in Nepal and sent to Tibet.
On the other hand there were Nepalese businessmen in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. They used to bring merchandise to Lhasa while travelling from Kathmandu, the capital city of Nepal, to Lhasa. In return they would bring gold, raw wools, woolen materials and edible salt to Kathmandu. Sometimes Nepalese would be obstructed by Tibetans at border crossing points. So there would have been disputes, controversies and conflicts. As a result, Nepalese troops would march ahead to Tibet to settle these disputes. In connection to these activities, there were violent confrontations between Gorkhali and Tibetan army troops. Usually the Gorkali (Nepalese) army would overrun the Tibetan army and the Nepalese borderline would be expanded towards the Tibetan frontier as a shifting of the border inside Tibet.
After the loss of territory, Tibetans would ask China for help. China supported Tibet by sending an army battalion. Then war would break out between the Gorkha army and Chinese troops. In many confrontations, Nepalese troops would retreat, resulting in the loss of the expanded territory. Again the border shifted back nearly to the previous borderline before the making of a peace treaty. In such a fashion the northern border of Nepal frequently shifted to and from Tibet in the treaties of 1775, 1789, 1792, and 1855 – between Nepal and Tibet; and in 1961 with the People's Republic of China.16 One could say that a conflict of interest, misunderstanding, and the misbehaviour between the people of two frontiers created an environment that encouraged the "re-bordering" and "de-bordering" of Nepal. In the twentieth century, the borderline between Nepal and China shifted a little towards China and some portion of Chinese territory to Nepal reciprocally. It was a case of "Give and Take" in the boundary demarcation of 1961. This represents a case of the northern boundary of Nepal shifting to and from China.
So far as the southern boundary of Nepal with India is concerned, it has shifted frequently due to territorial disputes and conflicts between the two governments. After unification, Nepal was established as a strong Himalayan kingdom called "Greater Nepal" in the nineteenth century. At that time, the British East India Company government did not like Nepal as a unified and sovereign country. The reason behind this was that Nepalese territory had obstructed India from penetrating into Tibet. So India at first disputed some portions of Nepalese land that was supposed to belong to the then King and Prince of India. But Nepal protested it. The British annoyance with Nepal resulted in the Anglo-Gorkha War from 1814 to 1816. During the war, the Gorkha army would sometimes drive away the British army in some segments of the boundary, while British troops would capture some territory of Nepal in other segments. In such a situation, the war ended with a treaty and Nepal lost one-third of the territory of Greater Nepal. In this manner Nepal's southern territory shifted back in 1815, two times in 1816, then in 1860 and 1875 to Nepal's present-day boundary.
Boundary disputes and conflicts failed to cease even after the treaties between British India and Nepal. Incidents continued even after the independence of India in 1947. The dispute was taken by independent India as a legacy from the British regime. With this sentiment, there are border encroachments, disputes, conflicts, controversies, claims and counter-claims in 71 places between Nepal and India.17 There is still the possibility that the border of Nepal will shift a bit more south in some spots.
Nepal-India Relations
There has been a very good relationship between the people of the frontiers of Nepal and India for centuries. Some of them have matrimonial relations with each other. Nepalese girls often become daughter-in-laws of Indians. In the same way Indian boys have become son-in-laws of Nepalese; both sides' parents are tied as parent-in-laws. However, there have been violent incidents. This violence has touched the sentiment of the relatives in both countries, affecting the relationship of the community of the frontiers.
There have been violence and incidents between the people of two frontiers, though they have maintained friendly relations. An example of such an incident could be cited as a case study of Indo-Nepal frontier inhabitants. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN)-Maoist displayed posters in some spots in the Nepalese frontier of the border in the third week of January 2010. The posters had a painting showing leather boot planted on the Indian national flag. The Maoist poster sparked some disputes among the people of the border area. The relationship between frontier inhabitants soured following the anti-Indian sentiment created by the poster of the Maoist Party of Nepal.
The situation at the border became volatile after Indians demonstrated against the posters and demanded an apology from the Maoists of Nepal. Indians in Jogbani, a border town, staged a protest against Nepalese Maoists on 26 January 2010 for using the Indian flag in Maoist posters in a derogatory manner. The protesters demanded that Indian authorities take up the matter with the Nepalese government. However, the Maoists refuted the Indian national allegations against them, claiming that it was not their intention to disrespect the Indian flag, but tension was caused unknowingly due to carelessness during the painting of the poster.18
In an effort to reduce the tensions between the two nations, civil society leaders organized a programme of reconciliation between the two sides. Hundreds of Nepalese and Indians came to the border at Rupaidiya of India and Jamunaha Nepalganj of Nepal on 30 January 2010. They hoisted the national flags of both countries in the no-man's land and sang the national anthems of both countries in respect of each other's country. Participants stressed that all sorts of disputes, including those involving the border, should be resolved through negotiations at the government level. They emphasized the need to uphold the decades of friendly and cultural relations between their two countries. Nepalese and Indians exchanged roses and embraced each other in a bid for peace and harmony.19
In the same way, people living along another border point organized a goodwill rally at the Jogbani area on 6 February 2010. Hundreds of people participated in the rally. The Nepalese carried national flags and bouquets of flowers as a gesture of peace, friendship and goodwill. People living on both sides of the border gathered in the no-man's land, shook hands, and exchanged bouquets of flowers. They chanted slogans saying "Long live Nepal-India relations." In such a way, they not only renewed old friendships but also strengthened them.20
Another event was organized by the "Peace for Nepal and Nepal-India Journalists Joint Forum" at a crossing point of the Nepal-India border in Nepalganj-Rupaidiya on 2 October 2010 to celebrate the occasion of World Peace Day and the birthday anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. At that event, Nepalese and Indian nationals held toy guns as a symbolic gesture to protest against armed violence at the border. They later burnt the toy guns in the no-man's land as a symbolic gesture against violence and terror in the frontier area.21
Effects of the Shifting Borders on Social Relationships
The inhabitants living in the borderland have been affected by the frequent shifting of borders. The border really matters to those living on it. For borderland communities, the power and violence, security and insecurity, connectivity and relationships, demonstrations and slogans are parts of the very fabric of daily life. For example, there were confrontations between the people of two frontiers in the border area at Tanakpur in January 2008. In other times, there are mutual understandings to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony through the organization of joint events for the integrated development of the border region. It has increased social relationships between the inhabitants of the two frontiers.
For a better understanding, people living in the Nepal-India border region should inspect the border areas, with the help of journalists, and try to solve the matter amicably at the local level. Nepalese parliamentarians have visited the border to familiarize themselves with border issues, especially with India. They have prepared and submitted reports to the government to take initiatives to resolve the outstanding cases.22
Voices of Borderland Communities
Boundary pillars and borders are equally important for both nations, and are the common property of both countries. If some of the border pillars are missing, it affects both sides. Voices have been raised from both frontiers when the borderline is blurred. Here is an example.
An incident took place between Nepal and Indian communities on 1 January 2008 at the Tanakpur border barrage embankment. Indian inhabitants came to Tanakpur barrage and they chanted slogans against Nepal for nearly half an hour. After that they entered into Nepalese territory at Brahmadev Bazar. Neither the Nepalese police nor Indian Special Security Bureau (SSB) personnel could obstruct them. There was a hot discussion between Nepalese and Indian groups on the disappearance of border pillar number 3. There was no trace of a no-man's land either. It was submerged under water while constructing the barrage. These were the elements of the disputed border in connection to the construction of Tanakpur barrage by India. Nepalese people claimed that India had encroached into Nepalese territory while constructing the barrage. In response, Indian demonstrators pleaded that this was the area exchanged during the construction of the Sharada barrage during the period of British rule of India in the 1920s.
The conversation between the two groups reached a climax when Indian demonstrators threw stones at the Nepalese inhabitants. One of the Nepalese, named Gopal Singh Dhami got injured, and the Nepalese countered by throwing back stones. This incident took place for about fifteen minutes. Ultimately, security personnel from both countries defused the tension.23
Politics of Identity
Political leaders used border issues to draw the attention of the Nepalese people toward their party and to win general elections. It may be relevant to cite some examples. Top leaders of the United Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN)-Maoist, including Prachanda, Babu Ram, Mohan Kiran, Narayan Kaji, Ram Bahadur Badal and others inspected the Nepal-India border on 11 January 2010 to study border problems and to build awareness of national integrity and sovereignty. They inspected the encroached Nepalese land with a crowd and chanted slogans against Indian encroachment.24
The leaders made speeches in some pocket areas where there were border disputes, disagreements, claims and counter-claims. Maoist Chairman Prachanda said: "We want relations with India on equal terms. We don't eye even an inch of Indian territory, nor will we concede an inch of ours. The struggle for national sovereignty will go on till the very last moment, until the encroached land is returned." Maoist Second Vice-Chairman Mohan Baidya Kiran said that an endeavour to protect Nepalese territory should not be taken as a war against India. India should not irritate its small neighbour by encroaching on its land.25
In the same way, First Vice-Chairman Baburam Bhattarai remarked that all the treaties and agreements that Nepal and India have inked so far should be based on equality and those unequal treaties and agreements need to be abrogated right away. He alleged that the Indian side has encroached upon 1,400 hectares of land in Susta.
He further said, Nepal would continue both political and diplomatic efforts to return the encroached land.26 Similarly, Maoist Third Vice-Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha expressed that India has trampled upon the sovereignty of Nepal by constructing the Laxmanpur barrage along the border, against international norms and practices.27
These are some of the expressions of the top brass of the Maoist political party of Nepal. This party has led the government and right now Dr. Baburam Bhattarai is the Prime Minister and Narayan Kaji Shrestha is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs. But they have never put border issues on the agenda.
Whenever a political party is in opposition of the current party in power, they roar and draw the people's attention toward Nepal's southern neighbour. But when they get into power to rule the country, they keep their lips tight. They never mention that Nepal's border has been encroached. This is a kind of irony of the political parties of Nepal.
Boundaries are related to the national integrity and sovereignty of a country. Encroachment of territory should be taken as a national issue. On the other hand border issues should not be raised if the border has not been violated. No one should blame a neighbour without concrete evidence. Nepalese political leaders have taken the border issue as an agenda of politics and identity for their parties while they are in opposition to the current party in power. They are silent when they get the reins of power and form a government. This shows the opportunism of the political parties of Nepal on national issues related to the border.
Joint Mechanism
The Nepal-India Technical Level Joint Boundary Committee worked for 26 years and it was dissolved on 31 December 2007, having completed 97 percent of the demarcation work.28 In connection to the remaining 3 percent of unresolved issues, the matter has occasionally been raised during the visits of high-ranking dignitaries. During Indian External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna's visit to Kathmandu on 15 January 2010, Nepal voiced its concern over border issues and the encroachment of Nepalese territory. In relation to this issue, the governments of Nepal and India reached an understanding to resolve border disputes and the controversy over the alleged encroachment of Nepalese soil through mutual understanding at the political level.29 In the same way, visiting Indian External Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters in Kathmandu on 25 November 2008, "We have agreed to resolve the long standing border disputes between the two countries at various places, including Kalapani and Susta through further discussions. Differences and divergence of view within the spectra of disputed areas are to be resolved and officers from both sides will be asked to meet and resolve this issue soon."30 But the joint mechanism has not been formulated to solve this issue either at the technical or diplomatic or political level.
So far as the district level committee is concerned, the Chief District Officer (CDO) of Nepal and District Magistrate (DM) of India have a joint mechanism to discuss the problems to maintain the border. At joint meetings, they occasionally inspected the border area and the no-man's land in person, recording missing pillars and determining if the no-man's land had been encroached. But repair and maintenance have not materialized due to a lack of instruction by the central government.
Cross-border Governance
Cross-border governance is essentially understood in relation to "de-bordering." The dynamics of de-bordering give way to "re-bordering." However, the nature of cross-border relations on the basis of mutual understanding is more useful for the people of both frontiers. The divergent issue may affect the governance of cross-border regions to the extent that functional changes at the borders bring into play divergent interests, which operate at different scales and in various temporalities. Such an examination also involves questioning the changing realities of borders by paying particular attention to the practices of "borderisation" and to its underlying logic.
The spatial re-composition affects social, economic and political relations within the cross-border regions whether in terms of territorial integrity or through the articulation of different geographical scales. Despite this fact, networks of actors play a determining role within the development of a multitude of cross-border institutional arrangements; work is done within the relational approach, which seeks a re-conceptualisation of the region as structured by a variety of flows and relations. In view of this, the question is not whether the territorial approach should be replaced by a relational approach, but rather how they can be combined in a way that goes beyond the inherent limits of uni-dimensional approaches.
The emergence of cross-border regions is favourable to such an enterprise: at the first step, territories should be well defined. The multiplicity of actors from grass-root levels to central governments involved in the decision-making process should favour a governance approach based on a system of negotiable political arrangements. Next, the presence of a national border cannot be relegated to the level of a simple remnant of a past territorial order as even when open it remains a significant limitation in terms of state territoriality. Ultimately, it is because the processes of de-bordering/re-bordering bring into play different spatialities of the border that a critical re-examination of our conceptual approaches is required.
It is unlikely that there will be a shifting of the northern border of Nepal with China, as the Himalayan Range has been demarcated as the boundary between the two countries. The border is supported through the natural environment. Regarding the mis-location of border marker number 57, on the Nepal-China borderline, there is a controversy between the two sides. The JTC has not settled this issue, though it represents only 6 hectares of Nepalese territory. This issue has been referred to higher authorities through diplomatic channels. But there has been no recent progress in terms of resolving this issue. However, it should be settled in the spirit of mutual understanding.
So far as the southern border of Nepal with India is concerned, there is no such natural environment to demarcate borders. So it is accessible for cross-holding occupations of agricultural land of the same topography and a single settlement bisected on both frontiers. If there is something else in such an environment, issues should be settled in accordance with historic maps and documents.
There must be a central level JTC to study the outstanding issues. The committee should discuss the major disputed issues and the findings should be presented with recommendations made to the respective governments. The heads of government must resolve the matter amicably in the spirit of friendship and mutual understanding. As far as the district level committee is concerned, they should work jointly to supervise and maintain the border, restricting the cross-holding occupation by the local people. Such mechanisms will help prevent a shifting of the border between Nepal and India. The government and the people of both the frontiers must respect each other in the spirit of brotherhood, friendship and good neighborliness.
*Buddhi N. Shrestha is the former Director General of the Government Survey Department and Managing Director of Bhumichitra Mapping, Kathmandu, Nepal. He can be contacted at: bordernepal@gmail.com.
1 Buddhi N. Shrestha, Border Management of Nepal (Bhumichitra Mapping Co, Kathmandu, 2003), 9.
2 Fannindra Nepal, Nepal: Tista to Sutlej (Kathmandu: Nepal Nationalistic Front, 1998), 224.
3 Bernardo Michael, The Tarai: A Part of Moghlan or Gorkha? Perspective from the Time of the Anglo-Gorkha War (1814-1816), Paper presented at the Conference 'Nepal Tarai: Contest and Possibilities' (Kathmandu, Nepal, March 2005): 2.
4 K.C. Surendra, Diplomatic History of Nepal (in Nepali) (Taplejung, Nepal: Sabina Publication 1989), 216-217.
5 Kamal Raj Singh Rathaur (ed.), History of Nepali Army (in Nepali), (Kathmandu: Army Headquarter, Bhadrakali, 2012), 36.
6 Ibid, 211-212.
7 Nepal-China Treaty and Agreement (Beijing, China, 2005), 33-36, 60-67.
8 Bhairab Risal, Patrika Weekly (in Nepali), 9-15 September 1999, 8.
9 Chitta Ranjan Nepali, Nepal-China Boundary Treaty (in Nepali), (Kathmandu, 1964), 69.
10 Grishma Bahadur Devkota, Political Mirror of Nepal (in Nepali) (Kathmandu: UB Devkota Publication, 1959), 190.
11 Buddhi N. Shrestha, Border Management of Nepal, 29.
12 Charles Umpherston Aitchison, A Collection of Treaties Vol. VIV (Calcutta, India, 1929), 65.
13 Amar Kaur Jasbir Singh, Himalayan Triangle: A Historical Survey of British India's Relations with Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan, 1765–1950 (London: The British Library, 1988), 177.
14 Aitchison, A Collection of Treaties, 48.
15 Michael, The Tarai, 8.
16 Gopal Siwakoti, Nepal-India and China Treaty (in Nepali), (Kathmandu: Madhuvan Publication, 2009), 486-487.
17 Buddhi N. Shrestha, Border War (In Nepali) (Kathmandu: Ratna Sagar Publication, 2013), 275.
18 The Hindu Daily, New Delhi, 27 January 2010.
19 Kantipur Daily, Kathmandu, 31 January 2010.
20 Republica Daily, Kathmandu, 7 February 2010.
21 Republica Daily, Kathmandu, 3 October 2010.
22 Study Report Concerning the Border Issues with India, Vol. I-IV (Kathmandu: Constitutional Assembly of International Relations and Human Rights Committee, 2010).
23 Naya Patrika Daily, Kathmandu, 2 January 2008.
25 Kathmandu Post Daily, Kathmandu, 12 January 2010.
26 Himalayan Times Daily, Kathmandu, 12 January 2010. 27 Kantipur Daily, Kathmandu, 12 January 2010.
28 Himalayan Times Daily, Kathmandu, 21 December 2007.
29 Republica Daily, Kathmandu, 16 January 2010.
30 Himalayan Times Daily, Kathmandu, 26 November 2008.
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: shifting borders |	Leave a comment »
Nepal Institution of Chartered Surveyors AGM
Nepal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Fifth Annual General Meeting
Fifth Annual General Meeting of Nepal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (NICS) was organized on 4 October 2013 at Survey Department (SD) Geodetic Hall. Members of NICS and other dignitaries, including Nagendra Jha- Director General of Survey Department, Rabin Kaji Sharma- Former Director General of Survey Department and President of Nepal Remote Sensing and Photogrammetric Society (NRSPS), Saroj Chalise- General Secretary of Nepal Surveyors Association (NSA), Kalyan Gopal Shrestha- Executive Director of Land Management Training Center (LMTC), Hridaya Narayan Mishra- Deputy Director General of SD and other Survey Department Officers were present at the function. The meeting was chaired by Buddhi Narayan Shrestha- President of NICS and Former Director General of Survey Department. Shambhu Gyawali- Executive Member of NICS conducted the program as master of ceremony.
At the beginning of the program, Punya Prasad Oli- Vice President of NICS and Former Director General of Survey Department welcomed all the members and invitees and participants on behalf of NICS and his own. He expressed, surveying and mapping are necessary for the design, implementation and execution of economic development projects in Nepal. Survey professionals have to maintain the standard of mapping according to the national specification.
Mahendra Sigdel- General Secretary of NICS presented the progress report of work done during the last year and program for the coming year. He explained the activities carried out by the NICS such as; it was conducted the seven weeks Real Estate Valuation Training Program in collaboration with the Purbanchal University for 23 participants. NICS has established a prize (with the support of Punya Prasad Oli) concerning the contest on the designing of specification of Digital Cadastre.
The NICS Executive authorities have discussed with the Governor of Nepal Rastra (Central) Bank, President of Bankers Association, Citizen Bank, Nepal Rastriya Banijya Bank concerning to provide the work of the property valuation to the NICS and its members. It was discussed that if the valuation work is provided to NICS, it should have been realistic valuation. As a result, the commercial banks should not bear losses while providing credit and loan to the housing companies and land developers, if the property would have been evaluated through the NICS. Governor of Rastra Bank and Bankers Association President assured that they will process for the enactment.
On the other hand many meetings have been conducted with the Director General and officials of Survey Department to make process to amend some of the Articles and sections of the Land (Survey & measurement) Regulations, 2058 to enact the work of Chartered Surveyors, also for the valuation of real estate property. He also informed that website of the Institution has been launched.
Rajendra Maratha- Treasurer of NICS and Former Chief Survey Officer of SD presented a report on the income and expenditure of the NICS. He summed up that the income was Rs. 369,400 and the expenditure was Rs. 332,000 and Rs. 37,000 was the saving during the last fiscal year. He informed that Rs. 25,000 have been saved from the real estate valuation training program. He also mentioned that International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) membership has been renewed on time transferring the annual membership fee. Rs. 6,000 has been provided as an advance for the creation of website of the Institution.
Buddhi Narayan Shrestha- President of NICS and Former Director General of Survey Department said the Chartered Surveyor License Holders must obtain to work amending the Articles 26 to 28 and 31 and some of its clauses of the Land (Survey & Measurement) Regulations, 2058. Chartered Surveyors have obtained the License from the Government Survey Department and they have deposited an amount of money and renewed their licenses year after year according to the Regulations. But they have not yet provided 'Work Directory.' It is requested to the Survey Department to issue the Directory as soon as possible.
The Regulation should be amended accommodating also the lower level Surveyors. For this, the Survey Licensing system should consist of three levels: 1) Chartered Surveyors, 2) Senior Surveyors and 3) Surveyors. Since Chartered Surveyor has been already established, who have completed Graduate Level Academic Qualification. And now, two more levels of Survey Licensing should be arranged for the Diploma Holders and Under Graduates, with an amendment of Land (Survey & measurement) Regulations, 2058. This will solve the bottleneck of Survey Licensing System in Nepal. On the other hand 37 other graduate level survey professionals have applied for the license. They should be provided licenses as per Regulations, completing the process of examination and certification by the 'Survey Licensing Committee.' It is worth mentioning that survey licensing system has been prevailed in Singapore, Malaysia and so many countries of the world.
Licensing system in Nepal in other disciplines is prevalent. This is not new in Nepal. Lawyers, Medical Doctors, Construction Engineers etc must obtain licenses to practice and perform their work. For example, medical doctors must obtain Registration Number compulsory from the Medical Council, whether they work for the government hospitals or private clinic. In Nepal, the first License was managed for Lawyers in 1956. At present they have three levels: Senior Advocate, Advocate and Agent (Abhikarta). Similarly, licensing system was started in medical field in 1979. With this perspective, it is deserving that all the Surveyors must hold License, whether they work in government sector or private consulting companies.
In fact, Survey Licensing system is necessary to enhance and develop the surveying and mapping activities in the country. In this modern age, all the works to be done for the development of nation by the government organization alone are not possible due to the volume of work. So the private sector should perform most of the works, and the government agencies must fix norms, standards and specification; and inspect and supervise the works done by the private consultants and contractors. If the work volume of private sector is increased, the significance and respect to the professionals will be enhanced. In mapping sector, we have also Nepal Surveyor Association, Nepal Remote Sensing and Photogrammetric Society, Nepal Geographical Information Society (NGIS) etc.
President Shrestha informed that International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) 25th World Congress is going to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 16 to 21 June 2014. The theme of the Congress is 'Engaging the Challenges- Enhancing the Relevance.' It's the first time in Asia the FIG Congress is going to be organized in Kuala Lumpur. NICS is the Member Association from Nepal. SD is the Affiliate Member and LMTC is the Academic Member. Nepal, being an Asian country let us participate the Congress as many as possible from Nepal. Let us submit the working paper as well for presentation. The due date is 1 December 2013. I have already submitted the Abstract for the FIG Congress. World Congress of every one's profession will be regarded also as 'Pilgrimage.' While attending such congresses, we can meet old friends and renew friendship; and make new friends. At the same time, we could acquire some more modern technologies, knowledge and information in our field. We can update our knowledge and know-how, so that we can apply in our country as well.
Shrestha also mentioned that FIG has invited bidding from Member Associations to host FIG Working Week-2017 and 2018. The due date is 30 November 2013 for WW-2017. Let us bid from Nepal to host the event. If we are successful in bidding, this will be a prestige of not only for NICS, but also Survey Department, Ministry of Land Reform & Management and the whole country. Shrestha requested Ganesh Prasad Bhatta, Chief Survey Officer and head of technical planning of SD, who was present in the program, to prepare a bid proposal document for WW-2017.
It is to be mentioned that Bhatta had also prepared this type of proposal last time to bid for FIG Working Week-2014. It was presented by Kalyan Gopal Shrestha- Executive Director of Land Management Training Center (LMTC) and Niraj Manandhar, Chief Survey Officer in Rome. But we obtained the second position, while it was voted. Let us hope, we will be successful this time to host the FIG WW in Nepal in 2017 in association with SD/Kathmandu University/MoLRM/NRSPS/NSA/LMTC.
In the program, Nagendra Jha- Director General of Survey Department said, a proposal has been already sent to the Ministry of Land Reform & Management for the amendment of Land (Survey & measurement) Regulations, 2058 to enact the license. It was discussed extensively and prepare an amendment in the concerning Article of the Regulation. It is expected to receive co-operation for this from all corners.
SD will always help to NICS to develop the survey profession. Those qualified Surveyors, who have applied for another lot of Survey Licenses, will be entertained. The process will be started soon. It is also necessary to brief the representatives of the Bankers and members of Bankers Association to explain the work of SD and NICS as well.
Jha further said right now, survey professionals, who are engaged especially on cadastral survey works, have been attacked and challenged by various elements. Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has eyed to the Cadastral Surveyors, who are working in the District Survey Offices. Recently, the CIAA has taken action against some Cadastral Surveyors. But it is not decided whether the Surveyors have done wrong. In this situation, all the survey professionals must explain the constraint and limitations of the cadastral survey work of by-gone days. It has to expose the real technical fact of the cadastral mapping which was done 45 years ago. It has been explained defensively in the MoLRM. However, it needs some louder voice from the Surveyors community.
Rabin Kaji Sharma- Former Director General of Survey Department and President of Nepal Remote Sensing and Photogrammetric Society wished all the success of this annual general meeting of the NICS. Future of NICS is bright to develop the activities of the survey professionals in Nepal. We have to make understandable of the importance of the Chartered Surveyors to other professionals. Let us hope that License Holder Chartered Surveyor will obtain to start to work in an efficient and effective manner very soon. NRSPS is ready to co-operate NICS to develop further the mapping and surveying activities in Nepal.
As an invitee, Saroj Chalise- General Secretary of Nepal Surveyors Association expressed the view of the Association that previously, it was not clearly defined on the Survey Licensing System. Now it is going to be clear on it. Let us sit down together once again and decide how to go to develop our profession and surveying and mapping activities in our country. We, the Surveyors are weak in collaborative idea. So let us go together.
If we all had obtained Survey Licenses, we could work also at morning and evening, after or before government working period. We could earn something more and we would be able to pay government taxes more and it would help to generate government revenue more. Now let us try to formulate Survey Council Act for the benefit of all grades of Surveyors. This will provide more validity in our profession and professional career. Nepal Surveyor Association is not far from NICS. Let us march together further ahead hand with hand.
Dr. Padma Raj Lamichhane, Executive Member of NICS thanked all who were present in the program and also who had provided moral support, on behalf of the Institution and his own. Survey Department Geodetic Survey Branch is thankful for providing meeting hall.
It is mentionable that an effort as struggle was made to make the 'birth' of the Chartered Surveyors in Nepal. It has shown the path of development. Initially, we were engaged in writing documents and forwarding it to the ministry through proper channel to obtain the License. This was a kind of professional interest in an integrated approach. As a result, we have received the Surveying License and we are the Government Registered License Holders, paying license fees with depositing some amount of money and renewing the license annually. We have Authoritative Certificate to work. But we are deprived of work officially due to lack of 'Working Directory.' However, it is hoped that the Regulations will be amended in due time; and Directory will be finalized to go to work by the License Holder Chartered Surveyors of Nepal within the umbrella of NICS.
At the end of the program, the reports presented by the General Secretary and Treasurer of NICS were passed with great applaud.
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: chartered surveyor, directory, FIG working week, FIG world congress, license, licensing system, regulation, survey department |	5 Comments »
Let us not make waste our votes
Posted on November 7, 2013 by bordernepal
आफ्नो मत खेर नफालौं
सरकारका निम्ति चुनौती र अवसरका रूपमा रहेको संविधानसभा निर्वाचनको मतदान हुने दिन नजिकै आइरहेको छ । अहिले मुलुकको कुनाकाप्चा पनि निर्वाचनमय भएको छ । उम्मेदवार र तिनका कार्यकर्ताले प्रचार-प्रसार उत्कर्षमा पुर्‍याउँदैछन् । अर्कोतर्फ निर्वाचन बिथोल्न उम्मेदवारमाथि भौतिक आक्रमण बढेको छ । प्रचार-प्रसार सामग्री लुटिने क्रम पनि फाट्टफुट्ट हुँदैछ । उम्मेदवार भएका शीर्ष नेताहरूले प्रचार-प्रसारका क्रममा निर्वाचन आयोगले तोकेको आचारसंहिताको मात्रा पनि विस्तारै मिच्दै आएका छन् । जति मतदानको दिन नजिकिँदैछ, त्यत्तिकै मात्रामा घरदैलोमा मत माग्ने क्रियाकलाप बढ्दै आएको छ । ठाउँ-ठाउँमा अवरोध गरिएका घटना पनि सञ्चारमाध्यममा आएका छन् । शीर्ष नेताहरू हेलिकप्टरमा पहाडी क्षेत्रमा हेलिंँदैछन् भने अर्कोतर्फ नेपाली सेनाका प्रधानसेनापतिले निर्वाचन मतदान समय कसरी सुदृढ गर्ने भनी हेलिकप्टर दौडाहा गरेका छन् । निर्वाचन आयोगले विशेष मतदान शिक्षा कार्यक्रम सञ्चालन गरेको छ भने मतदाता परिचयपत्र आफैले छपाइ गरी चुनावको निम्तासहित मतदाताको घरदैलोमा पुर्‍याउन लागेको छ । यसै क्रममा यस लेखोटमा भन्न खोजिएकोचाहिंँ मंसिर ४ गते मतदानका समय मतपत्रमा स्वस्तिक छाप लगाउने बेला जानी-नजानी आफ्नो मतलाई बदरभागी नबनाऔं । ठीक ठाउँमा ठीक तरिकाले मतपत्रमा छाप लगाऔं ।
यहाँ हामी मतदाता सतर्क हुनुपर्ने कुरा किन गर्न लागिएको हो भने अघिल्लो संविधानसभा निर्वाचनको प्रत्यक्ष र समानुपतिकतर्फ गरी साढे ९ लाखभन्दा बढी मतपत्र -प्रत्यक्षतर्फ ५.१५ र समानुपातिकतर्फ ३.६६ प्रतिशत) बदर भएको थियो । मतपत्र बदर हुनुको मतलब एकातिर जनताको निर्णय गर्ने अधिकार गुम्नु हो भने अर्काेतिर निर्वाचन जित्ने मान्छेले हार्न सक्छ ।
आखिर मतपत्र किन बदर हुन्छ ? यसमा केही असावधानीका कारणहरू हुनसक्छन् । यस्ता असावधानीका बुँदा दुर्गम पहाड तथा मैदानका पिछडिएका एवं महानगरवासी भए तापनि चेतनाका कमी भएका तथा जानकारीमूलक सूचना कमजोर रहेका मतदातालाई लक्षित गरी लेख्न लागिएको छ, जुनचाहिंँ निम्नानुसार हुनसक्छ ।
१) मतदानका समय मतपत्रको चुनाव चिन्हमा स्वस्तिक छाप लागाउँदा छापको मसी नसुक्दै मतपत्र पट्यार मतपेटिका -बाकस) मा खसाल्दा मसी लतपत भएर त्यो लतपतिएको मसी अर्को चुनाव चिन्हमा पनि पर्न सक्छ । यसरी दुई चुनाव चिन्हमा लगाएको मत स्वतः बदर हुन्छ । यसैले छाप लगाउने बित्तिकै हतार-हतार मतपत्र नपट्याऔं ।
२) हामीमध्ये कतिपय मतदाताले छाप लगाउनुअघि स्टाम्प प्याडको मसीको मात्रा याद गर्दैनौं । कहिलेकाहीं मसी धेरै भएको तथा सुख्खा अवस्थामा पनि हुनसक्छन् । मसी चोपिसकेपछि कुन चुनाव चिन्हमा छाप लगाउने भनेर चिन्ह खोज्दा-खोज्दै छापको मसी सुकिसकेको पनि हुनसक्छ । मसी नभएको छाप लगाएमा चुनाव चिन्ह रित्तो हुन्छ र मतदान नै नगरिएको अवस्थाको मतपत्र हुनपुग्छ ।
३) हामीमध्ये कुनै मतदाताले सुकेको मसीको छाप राम्रो देखिएन भनी दोहोर्‍याएर छापमाथि अर्को छाप हान्यौं भने त्यो ठीक ठाउँमा नपरी दिग्भ्रमित छाप हुनपुग्छ । परिणामतः त्यस्तो दोहोरो छापको मतपत्र बदरभागी हुनजान्छ ।
४) मसी धेरै भएको स्टाम्प प्याडमा छाप चोपेर मतपत्रमा जोडले छाप नबजारौं । यसरी छाप जोडले बजार्दा मसी उछिट्टएिर अर्को चुनाव चिन्हमा पुग्न सक्छ । अनि हामीले मतदान गरेको मतपत्र सदर हुँदैन ।
५) चुनाव चिन्ह घेरोको किनार पार गरी अर्को चुनाव चिन्हको केही भाग छुनेगरी छाप लगाउँदा पनि धेरै मतपत्र खेर जान पुग्ने हुन्छ । यस्तो भएमा विजयी हुने उम्मेदवारले पराजय भोग्नुपर्ने हुनजान्छ ।
६) अघिल्लो चुनावभन्दा हाल दोब्बर ठूलो मतपत्र -२० इन्च लामो १५ इन्च चौडा) भएकोले र १२२ दलले भाग लिइरहेका हुनाले राम्ररी हेर्दै नहेरी यही चिन्ह होला भनी स्वात्तै छाप लगाउँदा इच्छा गरेको उम्मेदवारको चिन्हसँग लगभग मेल खाने अर्कै उम्मेदवारमा पर्न सक्छ । त्यसलाई सच्याउन खोज्दा त्यो मतपत्र नै बदर हुनपुग्छ ।
७) कुन पार्टी अथवा कुन उम्मेदवारलाई मत दिने भन्ने कुरो मतदान गर्न लाइन बस्नु अगावै स्वयम् दृढनिश्चय गरौं । कुनै राजनीतिक पार्टीप्रति झुकाव नभएको तथा आफ्नो मनले खाएको उम्मेदवार नभएका मतदाता लाइनमा बस्दासम्म एउटा चिन्हमा छाप लगाउने विचार गछौर्ं, तर मतपत्र हात परेपछि अर्कैमा छाप लगाउने पनि हुनसक्छौं । मतदान गरेर घर पुगेपछि बेकार त्यस अमूक चिन्हमा छाप मारेछु भन्ने पछुतो पनि गछौर्ं । यस्तो पछुतोमा नपरौं ।
८) चुनाव तथा उम्मेदवारहरूप्रति असन्तुष्टि व्यक्त गर्न धेरै चिन्हका कोठाहरूमा भटाभट छाप मारी हामी मध्येका मतदाता हास्यपात्र नबनौं । हामीकहाँ 'नेगेटिभ भोटिङ'को व्यवस्था छैन । उम्मेदवारहरूमध्ये कसैलाई पनि मनले खाएन भने 'माथिका कुनै उम्मेदवारलाई होइन' भन्ने कोठामा स्वस्तिक छाप ठोक्ने व्यवस्था हाम्रो देशमा छैन । आगामी निर्वाचनदेखि यस कुरामा निर्वाचन आयोग र सरकारले प्रबन्ध गरी असन्तोष मतको प्रतिशत बुभmने प्रबन्ध गर्नु समयानुकूल हुन्छ ।
अझै पनि एकथरी मतदाताहरू मंसिर ४ गते निर्वाचन हुँदैन भन्नेमा छन् । अर्काथरी निर्वाचन भएमा मतदान गर्न पहिलो प्रहरमै पुग्नुपर्छ, अपरान्हपछि के हुन्छ के हुँदैन भन्ने मनसायमा छन् । आजसम्म सरकार र निर्वाचन आयोग निर्वाचन हुन्छ भन्नेमै छन् । अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्थातर्फबाट पनि २ सय २५ जना पर्यवेक्षक पर्यवेक्षणका लागि खटिइसकेका छन् । एमाओवादी अध्यक्षले बीमाओवादीलाई चुनावी प्रक्रियामा सहयोगका लागि आग्रह गर्दै उहाँहरूको मोर्चालाई मन्त्रिपरिषदबाट मनोनीत गरिने २६ सिट लगायत अन्य सहुलियत दिन सकिने प्रस्ताव कात्तिक १५ गते पोखराको कार्यक्रममा भनेका छन् ।
यसैगरी पूर्वप्रधानमन्त्री शेरबहादुर देउवाले नेकपा-माओवादीसहितका दललाई निर्वाचनपछि संविधान संशोधन गरेर संविधानसभामा सहभागी गराउने विकल्प खुला रहेको कुरा डडेलधुरामा कात्तिक १० गते बताएका छन् । कतिपय राजनीतिक नेताहरूले बीमाओवादी नेताहरूसँग अनौपचारिक कुराकानी गर्दा आफूहरूको बहिष्कार कार्यक्रम शान्तिपूर्ण हुने बताउँदै आएका छन् । यद्यपि कतिपय स्थानमा चुनावी गाडी जलाउने र उम्मेदवारलाई धाकधम्की दिने कुरो भएरै आइरहेको छ ।
यसैबीच संयुक्त राष्ट्रसंघका आवासीय समन्वयकर्ता जिमी म्याकगोल्डरिकले कात्तिक १६ गते नेकपा-माओवादी कार्यालय पुगी मंसिर ४ को संविधानसभा चुनावलाई अवरोध नपुर्‍याउन आग्रह गर्दै 'तपाईंहरूले गर्ने बहिष्कार शान्तिपूर्ण होस्' भने । जवाफमा उपाध्यक्ष एवं विदेश विभाग प्रमुखले 'दलहरूले आचासंहिता पालन गरुन्, हाम्रा कार्यक्रम शान्तिपूर्ण हुनेछ' भन्ने कुरा बताएका छन् ।
यी कुराहरू आफ्नै ठाउँमा छन् । मुख्य कुरो मतदान समयमा मतदाताले मतपत्रमा बेठीक तरिकाले स्वस्तिक छाप लगाई आफ्नो मत बदरभागी नबनाऔं । एउटै मतले पनि पराजय हुनुपर्ने उम्मेदवार विजयी हुनसक्छन् भन्नेतर्फ ध्यान दिऔं । उदाहरणार्थ, अघिल्लो संविधानसभाको चुनावमा पर्सा-२ बाट मधेसी जनअधिकार फोरम नेपालका उम्मेदवार शशीकपुर मियाँ कांग्रेसको अजव द्विवेदीसँग १ हजार ५ सय १० मतले पराजित भए । मियाँको ३ हजार १ सय मतपत्र स्वस्तिक छापको सट्टा ल्याप्चे लगाएकोले बदर भएको थियो ।
हाम्रो एक भोटको पनि ठूलो महत्त्व छ । फुटबलको खेलमा आत्मघाती गोल गर्ने खेलाडी आफूमात्रै हार्दैन, तर एघारजना खेलाडी नै हार्न पुग्छन् । यसबाट सिङ्गो टिमको नाममा समेत प्रतिकूल असर पुग्छ । यद्यपि उसले बल बचाउन खोज्दा-खोज्दै आत्मघाती गोल हुनपुगेको हुन्छ । यसैले आत्मघाती खेलाडीजस्तै हामी आफू आत्मघाती मतदाता नबनौं । विजय हुनुपर्ने उ्रम्मेदवारलाई हरूवा नबनाऔं । मुलुकको विकासलाई पछाडि धकेल्ने मतदाता नहोऔं । आफूले रोजेको चुनाव चिन्हमा सतर्कतासाथ स्वस्तिक छाप लगाऔं । हतार-पतारमा आफ्नो मत बदरभागी नबनाऔंं ।
प्रकाशित मिति: २०७० कार्तिक २१ ०९:०६
Filed under: Blogroll | Tagged: careful stamping, election, election symbols, invalid votes, voting |	Leave a comment »


Saturday, August. 11 Th. At 5pm.
Venue: Lake Mary Senior Center. 911 Wallace Ct. Lake Mary, FL-32746.
Netra Pathak 407-7193356, Geetha Sethumahadevan 407-9297326, Atul Chumle 321-6843900.
NOTE: Seating is limited, so please call for tickets in advance!


text:
Wear bridge deck slide goes without a hitch
Aaron Morby 5 years ago
Contractors have completed the 300m long bridge deck slide for Sunderland's new wear crossing in a seamless operation taking just 20 hours.
The temporary blue steel nose will be removed from the deck over the coming weeks and the remaining 40m section of bridge deck will be built in-situ on the north side during the summer months.
Joint venture partners Farrans Construction and Victor Buyck Steel Construction have now completed the highest risk elements of the innovative bridge construction programme.
The steel and concrete bridge deck weighing 4,750 tonnes was inched across the Wear and now connects Pallion to the south and Castletown to the north.
In February engineers successfully lifted the 1,550 tonnes A-frame centrepiece from a barge after it was sailed from a Belgian prefabrication yard.
Already the project is being hailed as a landmark in the use of off-site construction for bridge building.
The final 40m of bridge deck will be constructed on the north side of the river and the cable stays will be fitted to the pylon and then attached to the deck.
The cables will be gradually stressed to take the weight of the bridge deck before the temporary supports holding the deck are removed.
Stephen McCaffrey, Project Director for FVB Joint Venture, said: "It was a substantial structure to move across the river, so it was a very slow and steady operation.
"The positioning of the deck throughout was crucial as it had to be navigated through the middle of the pylon and then onto each of the temporary supports built in the river to support it.
"We had a team of people guiding it across and scrutinising its progress, as it was planned to the millimetre, but it went as expected, so we are very happy."
The bridge is on track to be complete in the spring of 2018.
Ravensbury estate regeneration in Mitcham is Henry's first project for Clarion
Court hears how tower wasn't configured correctly
Seamus French starts countdown to firm's founder stepping down
Tribunal over KPMG and former staff's forgery allegations gets underway

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Are there performance implications when using ArrayList.get() many times per iteration? For Android development in general, is it more expensive to do the following:
(Example 1)
for(int x=0; x < largeObjectCollection.size(); x++){
    largeObjectCollection.get(x).SomeValueOne   = "Sample Value 1";
    largeObjectCollection.get(x).SomeValueTwo   = "Sample Value 2";
    largeObjectCollection.get(x).SomeValueThree = "Sample Value 3" ;
    //Continues on to over 30 properties...
}

Over this implementation (Example 2)
for(int x=0; x < largeObjectCollection.size(); x++){
   SampleObjectIns myObject = largeObjectCollection.get(x);
   myObject.SomeValueOne   = "Sample Value 1";
   myObject.SomeValueTwo   = "Sample Value 2";
   myObject.SomeValueThree = "Sample Value 3" ;
   //Continues on to over 30 properties...
}

I couldn't find any break down of performance implications when using .get() multiple times instead of creating a new instance of that object each iteration.
I'm thinking that .get() doesn't use much in terms of resources since the position of the element is already known, but when dealing with many properties is it best to just fetch that object once as shown in example two?

A: There is no performance impact of calling get() method several times in a looping construct.
The get() method doesn't do any searching kind of stuff. The position is known, hence the exact location in the RAM is also known. So all it needs to do it make a single RAM access which is a constant time operation - O(1).
So, you can use it multiple times without any performance impact. But a much cleaner approach would be to use get() once, store it in a local variable and them re-use that variable.

A: The first case is clearly the one which would do more work. There are at least two possibilities:

*

*The JIT might be able to determine that the list values aren't changing, and that you're requesting the same value repeatedly; and thus it effectively converts it into the second form.

*The ArrayList.get operation is just really fast; it's basically just doing an array lookup, and the value it looks up is in cache already because you've just looked it up.
So, your timing measurement is dominated by the other work that you're doing. So, even if you're doing 29 more get calls than necessary, 30 times a tiny number is still a tiny number.

A: Only reason is that, get operation is really fast for array, that's why there is almost no notable difference in performance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Survival Seed Cache - Heirloom Non-GMO - 32,000 Seeds | BUDK.com - Knives & Swords At The Lowest Prices!
When it comes down to it, you better be prepared just in case the unthinkable happens - no more grocery stores. The best way to do that is to make sure that you can grow your own food, if necessary. Our Survival Seed Cache gives you more than 32,000 seeds from a variety of different vegetables so that you can have a plentiful garden. These seeds have been moisture conditioned for long storage and were grown in the USA. This kit includes 10 hermetically sealed packets.


There are some gorgeous new shades of Stila Convertible Color coming up – this time on an M&S exclusive. The shade above is Dahlia – it looks really dark in the pot but is a lovely kiss of raspberry on the cheeks and lips that looks quite natural.
I'm not a huge fan of double-up products – they often do neither thing terribly well, but Stila has got it sorted with their Convertible Colors. I've used Dahlia as a lip stain with a sheen over the top and also as a cheek shade – it does need careful blending as it's slightly on the dry side compared to a traditional formula creme blush which usually just glides. My tip would be to go with a small amount to start with and add more – it's a proper pain to go too much and then have to blend it down.
I love the way that all the Stila Convertible Color is named after flowers. I don't have a drop date for the new shades (there will be several) at M&S but I'll update as soon as I do.
I love Stila Convertible Colors and I don't think I have ever been so excited for new shades to launch! Thanks for the heads up. When I see them I will be sure to check out this shade as it looks absolutely beautiful!
I need to try cream blushes soon. I have some samples but I need to play with them first and not be afraid of them 😛 This color looks beautiful!


text:
The Maverick CEO
Ricardo Semler is looking for a few good artisans—self-directed, highly motivated employees who will work together creatively and harmoniously to create great products in his industrial factories. And he's willing to completely restructure his company to find them.
Sharon Shinn • January 01, 2004
photographs by J. R. Duran
Ricardo Semler, CEO of Semco Inc. in São Paulo, Brazil, likes to quote a parable about three stone cutters who are asked to describe their jobs. One views himself merely as a man who cuts stones. Another thinks of himself as a craftsman who painstakingly cuts stones into specific shapes. The third says, "I build cathedrals." Semler wants to attract some of the people in that third group to Semco, a business that produces marine and food processing equipment. In fact, he thinks he may already employ them. He just has to structure his company in such a way that they feel free to devote their considerable talent and energy into making Semco a cathedral among corporations.
That wasn't his first thought when he took over the business from his father in the early 1980s. At that time, Semler—young, eager, and ambitious— wanted to make Semco a model of efficiency. He hired hard-driving managers, installed new technology, and worked extraordinarily long hours to achieve that goal. The result was a restless workforce at the factories and poor health for Semler.
Gradually his mindset changed as he began considering ways of turning over more and more responsibility for the business to the people who were actually doing the day-to-day work. According to his reasoning, medieval cathedral builders produced magnificent works of art virtually without supervision. Why couldn't the men and women of his workforce—adults who made complex and far-reaching decisions in their daily lives—be trusted to choose the colors of their uniforms and decide when to start their workdays? Come to think of it, why couldn't they organize their pay scales and approve their bosses? Why couldn't they decide what new ventures Semco could invest in and veto plans proposed by the CEO? No reason at all.
Over the next few years, Semler and a radical management team completely upended traditional business theory at Semco, doing away with conventional organizational charts while allowing employees more and more freedom to choose what products they would work on and how they would produce them. The evolution, engagingly detailed in Semler's 1993 best seller Maverick, was hardly a smooth one. Many employees were eliminated by job reconstruction or left because they couldn't handle the turmoil. But those who remained became passionate about Semco and their place within it. They became cathedral builders.
Today, Semler spends much of his time away from the corporate offices, giving lectures or merely traveling with his family. His new book, The Seven-Day Weekend, stresses the value of free time away from the office and time for creative thinking in the office. Such priorities, he notes, have raised Semco's revenues from $35 million to $160 million in the last six years. Semler is still an evangelist for worker empowerment—and now he also advocates taking time to rest in the company hammock and feed the ducks down at the pond. He believes that, even at the business school level, budding CEOs can learn valuable lessons about what's really important in the workplace.
You received intensive executive training at Harvard Business School. What were the most valuable lessons that you learned there?
I enjoyed my stint at Harvard Business School and found it helpful as a cross-reference—getting to understand what peers think and testing my ideas in an intellectual atmosphere. Also, the specific concepts of professors and the lively drive toward learning and re-thinking were all very useful.
What do you think is overlooked in the education of typical business students?
I think business students are insufficiently prepared, because the business world is changing faster than they can comprehend and because their personal and emotional abilities have been clouded by excessive decision-making drills. Not enough effort goes into accepting that many times there is no good answer—and that things can be left at that.
I was once received very coolly at a graduation of Brazil's foremost business students, in the mid-'80s, when I gave a talk to them. I said that I thought that the jobs that they were dreaming of, based on b-school, would not be there when they finally arrived.
Most business students would find themselves unprepared for the way business is done at Semco. You restructured the company so that there's no organizational chart. Workers approve their own bosses, and people only attend meetings if they think the meetings are important. When you instituted such changes, what made you think they would work?
People's self-interest. Nobody wants to stay in boring meetings or work for bosses they didn't choose. Of course, you can make people come to meetings and look alert, but it's more difficult to get them to perform what was decided at the meeting. We want people to follow their instincts and to choose as bosses people they respect—even if they don't like them. This happens often at Semco.
Do you think all companies could be structured the way yours is?
This is an exercise in sociology or anthropology and has to do with respecting tribes. It has very little, if anything, to do with types of companies. So, yes, it seems universally applicable to people and how they work. We've seen that proved in practice by police divisions, hospitals, and schools in many parts of the globe—in organizations that have seen our way of doing things and have implemented similar concepts.
Can a company implement some of your strategies and not all of them? Which ones are most easily transferable and which ones would be most difficult for another company to implement?
There are many standalone concepts. One is the idea of a 360-degree evaluation, which we instituted in 1979, or of candidates for leadership jobs being interviewed by their future subordinates, or even the idea of people working at home—which we've been practicing since 1981.
Many companies would encounter difficulties convincing bosses to give up control, which is a basic tenet at Semco. But there are also thousands of company owners who could implement freedoms and don't. Finally, there is a long series of little things that each person can do within his or her sphere of influence. These things can change lifestyles and create gratification. It doesn't require all or nothing.
If business students were reading a case study of Semco, what do you think they would take away as valuable lessons?
The main lesson is that freedom is a prime driver for performance.
But that very freedom sometimes makes it harder for people to work within an environment such as yours, because they're accountable. Did you have workers who resisted your reorganization? How did you deal with them?
The system naturally expels people who find no place for freedom, but they are very few. On the other hand, we've had many autocratic bosses leave. If autocratic bosses are going to stay, all it takes is for them to find employees who feel better coming to work at a given time, wearing certain clothes, and speaking at the right time. There is no brainwashing in the system. Bosses have the freedom to be a pain in the butt. All they need is people who like to work for them.
"Why grow as a business? What proof is there that companies that grow—above, say, the minimum few percent a year—do better than the ones that don't? I've researched, and the answer is: None."
At Semco, employees can vote to veto new products or new product ventures. This must mean you trust your employees as a group absolutely. How can you achieve that trust? How do you make sure you're hiring someone who will fit in with the Semco way?
We trust the process. We're never sure that we hired right, but then, no organization is. We just reduce the risk. Job ads are pieces of fiction and speak of how good a place Semco is to work. Job candidates participate in the fiction by leaving the negative aspects of their careers out of their résumés. What are the chances that these two fictions will lead to mutual comfort levels? So we bring in many Semco people to interview every candidate—dozens, sometimes—and the candidate comes back many, many times before hiring occurs. That way, we dilute the fiction and increase the chance of a good match. Our turnover rate of one percent bears this out.
You put hammocks in the offices at Semco so that employees can take a break—and while they're resting, they often come up with bright new ideas. But what about people who aren't used to working creatively? Do they have to be trained to stop and think? How do you get them to buy into this attitude?
We cannot see "creative" or "uncreative" people. All we need is a night watchman who stares out into the night and thinks of a better way to schedule his rounds, or a cleaner who thinks up a different way to mop. Are these creative people? Is there anyone who doesn't have a creative streak in him that just needs to be brought out?
On the flip side, what if the employee really is bone-idle and doesn't want to do anything but sleep while he's lying in the hammock? How do you make that person become a contributing member of the team?
We stopped evaluating people by hours and methods a long time ago. Our people contract with us for a given output— say, 512 thingamajigs produced or sold per month. If they're idle most of the time, but can produce, we love them. If they come in early and leave late and don't deliver the 512, we probably cannot live with them.
Obviously, when you took over Semco, you began to question the traditional role of the employee. In general, you have an attitude of "Why, why, why?" In addition to some of the things you've changed in your own corporation, what do you see in the business world that needs to be rethought from the why-why-why point of view?
Why do we wear suits and ties? Why do we want democracy in the rest of our lives when we've never seen a democratic workplace?
Then you believe "grow or die" is a bad way to approach a business?
To grow the few percent that keeps a company abreast of its markets is fine—and that's not really growth. It's just enough to make up for inflation and demography. Above that, we are reacting to insecurities and generalizations. We say that we need to grow for globalization, for career opportunities, or for added resources. However, seasoned CEOs know that globalization just shifts jobs around the globe, thus destroying the career opportunities of those lower down, and that the additional scale economies that we plan for rarely surface. When companies focus on growth, then diseconomies of scale, long periods of transition to grander phases, and the imbalance in the human ecology are nefarious problems.
And yet, Semco grew 900 percent under your leadership. If it's not necessarily a good thing to grow, how were you able to cope with such a dramatic spurt?
We're not against growth at all. We just want to make sure that it happens because our customers bring it about, not our board or a goal-hungry CEO. Our growth has come from markets that grew or market shares that increased. Sometimes our growth was a mistake, and we ended up losing the business unit entirely. We're often wrong about this.
Therefore, you have to rely on experience to learn such business lessons, as opposed to learning them in business school. What else do you think is impossible to learn at any business school, no matter how good it is?
As professor Henry Mintzberg says, knowing how to get into, and survive, b-school is no indication of whether a particular person will know how to lead in the business world.
"The business school is more a result of Henry Ford's assembly line than Frederick Taylor's concepts. Not in the sense of pouring out ready-made managers dressed in black—although a bit of that is also true—but in the sense that the emotional development is arrested by a brains-directed effort."
What I feel has been lost, and was present in the Greek paideia, was the development of a full human being, with emotions and personal abilities included. After the Renaissance, only the intellect was developed through schooling. Arts and physical education became of almost no importance.
The business school is more a result of Henry Ford's assembly line than Frederick Taylor's concepts. Not in the sense of pouring out ready-made managers dressed in black— although a bit of that is also true—but in the sense that the emotional development is arrested by a brains-directed effort. A student who is timid and slow on tests might submerge in b-school, but could have turned out to be a wonderful, compassionate, thoughtful leader.
So much of the business curriculum today is taught in silos. How can schools break out of that habit? How would it benefit students if they did?
Schools developed the class size, the expository method, and the breakdown into disciplines to account for the industrial revolution and the mass-market method of learning. This era is bygone, but the conservative mentality is keeping the school system from evolving. Silos are a silly way to learn, and they lead to a situation in which almost all adults are unable to relate to or cross-reference subject matter. How many adults know what was happening in the Western world during the Ming Dynasty? Was Christopher Columbus exploring then? How many know that Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian monk, or that his precepts in genetics also set the laws for probabilities that are used in Las Vegas today? Or that those precepts came via Lucas Pacioli, a 15th-century mathematician?
Silos will be out the door in a decade or so, but a new system has yet to be learned. This is why we set up the Semco Foundation, to construct a new system of education for the new century.
In fact, you're deeply involved in the creation of a school in São Paulo that celebrates freedom and flexibility. Has the school opened yet? Who will attend?
The school is in place and has started enrolling two- to ten year-olds. We want to change things at the starting point. At this school, our kids determine the rules and make decisions every week at a school meeting. We don't want to holler and point fingers at kids. They are perfectly able to settle disputes and regulations alone. We do sit in to facilitate, when they want.
We also split the teacher's role into two parts: tutor and master. The tutor has ten to 12 kids under his or her wing, but is responsible for transmitting wisdom, support, and guidance, not facts. The masters, who must be experts in something and passionate about it, transmit the accumulated knowledge of humankind. We have some 40 kids and 97 masters.
At the Lumlar Institute, which runs the school, we develop a mosaic technology to teach free children effectively, something that the educational world knows nothing about. Since our kids are obliged to be in school but not in class, it behooves us to interest them—and we do. Children are already staying 1.84 times longer at our school, out of free will, than at other schools in the system. We plan to take over a public school in February.
Even once they're out of grade school and business school, people can benefit from lifelong learning. Are managers at Semco encouraged to continue with their educations, and if so, via what model?
People at Semco, by setting their own timetables and workloads, are more apt to take time out for learning. But we also have sabbaticals, and a system whereby people can diminish and increase their workweeks by arrangement with their teams. We also have Retire-A-Little, where people can take a day, or half-day, off every week, to do what they would when they retire.
What piece of advice would you like to give business students as they graduate from school and prepare to enter the working world?
They should use the tools and skills that they mastered with care. Those are hammers and screwdrivers they've been given, and people are made of delicate skins.


Your veterinarian is your pet's advocate, and will always offer the best options for your pet's health and welfare. If your pet is admitted into the hospital, you will be provided with an estimate, which includes an explanation and authorization of the services your veterinarian would like to perform, as well as an estimate of the fees related to those services. You may also request an estimate of services offered by your veterinarian at any time.
*Please note; if this is your FIRST visit to our hospital, we cannot accept payment in the form of a Check.


Scuba diving on live TV!
I have never been scuba diving in my life – let alone on live TV! But a couple weeks ago, I got my chance to do it at the Erie County Fair.
Instructors with "Go Dive Now" travel around the country, on a mission to promote scuba diving for people of all ages.
I got to wear a specialized dive mask with a built-in microphone so I could talk underwater, and you could watch me through a monitor!
The gear I wore only weighed 40 pounds but underwater it felt much lighter, and only felt like a couple pounds. Pretty cool experience!