The government is now contemplating the implementation of a policy to ban the recruitment of Nepali citizens in foreign armies based on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on International Relations and Human Rights, which was formed on December 26, 2011. The Cabinet and Prime Minister’s Office has recently directed the Foreign Ministry to implement the recommendation. But if the government takes this step, it would be one in the wrong direction as it is likely to meet resistance from many Nepalis in need of employment yearn for prospects abroad to make a living.

It is not the first time that the government and political parties have talked about this type of policy to ban recruitment in foreign countries’ armies. Even during the Panchayat period, political parties, especially the left parties, and other extreme nationalist leaders, had opposed such recruitment. After 1990’s political change, this issue was vigorously debated and well-covered by the media. And this issue came back into the media limelight after the political change of 2006, when the Maoist party made it part of their agenda to ban recruitment. There were protests from various groups of people, especially from social groups like the Gurungs, Magars and Chettris, whose participation in foreign armies has been proportionately higher than in other groups.

I have heard the discussion and debates about recruitment ever since I started going to school in Pokhara. During the Panchayat period, politicians used to oppose the recruitment policy publicly, but in their private lives, they used to participate and encourage their children and kin to join foreign armies. I have seen political and civil leaders giving lectures in schools about the need to work within the country and not be a “servant” in foreign countries. I have seen some of my friends who did extremely well in their studies in high school and college later on give up their studies after being recruited in the British and Indian armies.

The policy to ban recruitment in foreign armies has arisen mainly because of a misguided notion of “nationalism”. In the past, especially during the Panchayat period, a kind of jingoistic nationalism was encouraged. At that time, the government did not encourage Nepalis to go to foreign countries for work mainly because of the thinking that menial work done by these migrant workers would bring “shame” to the country. This was, in fact, the perspective of elites and rulers only. Despite this policy, many Nepalis went to work in India, taking advantage of the open border. Some leftist political parties and Panchayat nationalists used to demand the closure of the border between Nepal and India for this reason. On the other hand, studies conducted among the Nepali migrants working and staying in India, even during the Panchayat era, revealed that they would not like the border to be closed. This leads to question—whose interest do we take into account in these nationalist discourses? Today, at a time when notions as extreme as ‘no borders’ are surfacing around the globe, and globalisation is in full swing, jingoistic nationalism seems to persist in Nepal.

To explain or justify any event, we usually rely on history. This is what we’ve done over this policy to ban recruitment in foreign armies as well. But, we just cannot constantly blame history for every wrong that we see today. There is, obviously, a need to rise above history. This, however, does not mean that we have to leave it all behind, but that proper analysis of the past and the circumstances leading to a certain event is necessary. We all know how recruitment of Nepalis in the foreign armies began. The recruitment in foreign armies prior to 1950 was far from lucrative, and was imposed by the colonial rulers. Many died during the World Wars and did not receive any benefits. Some returned home disabled. This certainly needs to be documented and analysed. But after the 1950s, this same job became lucrative and was sought after by many. There is a need to correct the historical injustice, and for this, some organisations are taking steps forward. But we should also look into the present and the future. Presently, people who are in the British and Indian armies are happy, considering the absence of employment for them in Nepal.

There is no real difference between working in armies and working in the private sector in foreign countries. Rather, such army work is more secure and pays more than the private jobs undertaken by many Nepali men and women abroad. In this situation, we also have to remember that Nepalis fled to India for recruitment in foreign armies, even when the government was not supportive of such recruitment. This was the case in the few decades immediately after the 1816 treaty with the East India Company, when the Nepali government had restricted such recruitment. It is only in the later period that the government actually facilitated the recruitment. Just banning recruitment in army jobs has no real meaning.

The government should aim at making employment in foreign countries for its citizens a matter of choice. As of now, it is mainly due to compulsion that a majority of people have gone to foreign countries to work. We should also reckon the fact that every year; more than 400,000 young people enter into the labour market. This year more than 500,000 students appeared in the SLC examination alone, and most of them will enter the labour market, sooner or later. This shows the magnitude of labour demand, and supply, in the country. The domestic economic sector does not have the capacity to absorb

this force into the market at present. Most young people want out of the agricultural sector, but at the same time, the industrial and non-farming sectors are virtually stagnant.

Without thinking about this, the policy of curtailing any job opportunity for Nepalis will not bear positive results.

Published on: 11 April 2012 | The Kathmandu Post