Ceiling on land

Many of us feel that there is no difference between the Maoists seizing land during the war years and the government setting a land ceiling and then acquiring the land in excess of the ceiling without any compensation. No wonder, the UCPN (Maoist) is advocating for such an  arrangement, as they did so claiming it to be the right thing in the past. An individual who acquires land for farming or any other purpose does so as an investment. There is already a land reform law that sets the land ceiling for various purposes. There is a provision in law under which land acquired in excess of the ceiling will be acquired by the concerned government authorities after paying compensation. Though the BP Koirala government of the late 1950s and 1960s is said to have initiated the move, it was then king Mahendra who enforced the Land Reform Act in 1964. There have been a number of amendments since then, but the Act has a number of loopholes to ensure that the people, especially those with large tracts of cultivable land, are able to misuse and bypass the law. This is usually done by transferring ownership to relatives and trusted friends. As the law of the land applies to all Nepalis, such travesty of laws and regulations must be stopped and excess land must be acquired by the concerned authorities. This might be a difficult task but it is something that needs to be done. Also, as this might go against the fundamental rights of individual citizens, a constitutional provision might solve the legal morass.

Limit on wealth

Similarly, the question of ceiling on private wealth is another controversial topic that is being discussed in the CA. The UCPN (Maoist) has advocated setting a ceiling on private wealth while some others are opposed to it. It will be worthwhile to note that we in this country are currently following a semi-open market policy under which all have the opportunity to undertake the professions of their choice. The aim is to earn as much as one possibly can and then invest those earnings—which are in excess of daily maintenance of all kinds—in areas that will yield enticing results. In the process, some can become filthy rich and find mention on the Forbes list of billionaires. If a ceiling is imposed on personal wealth, then such mentions will remain an unattainable dream and will tend to discourage individual entrepreneurship. This would be tragic for the country.

The state ownership of commercial enterprises is there for all to see. So many such enterprises, including Nepal Airlines, are on the verge of collapse while many others have already given away. Nepal Telecom is so rapidly being overtaken by another private telecommunication entity that it is just a matter of time before the former meets a similar fate. It is private enterprises that are making progress, whether in tourism, manufacturing, construction, building or plantation. And it is this sector that is providing at least some jobs to Nepali youth. The

ceiling on property is almost certain to discourage the private sector, which is run by private individuals or groups of individuals who will be hit extremely hard by such a ceiling.

Investment effect

In addition, we now want foreign investment to come into the country as it will help improve our economy. Many think that such investment will be limited to water resources but the fact is, investment can be directed to any sector. A cap on private earnings will effectively drive away such investment from all sectors. This is something that leaders of all shades need to mull over properly and in an apolitical manner. It has to be realised that any constitutional provision made on these issues will be binding to all Nepalis and all Nepali institutions, including the government and its agencies unless exceptions are specified in the constitution itself. It will be more than foolhardy to rush to incorporate these issues in the constitution without proper debate, both in the CA and outside.