C.K. Lal's comment on the Royal Nepal Army (#10) opening a commercial bank shows once more that some-thing is seriously wrong somewhere. One of the primary responsibilities of a democratic government is to effectively assert civilian control over the military, and to maintain a balanced civil-military relation-ship. Successive governments after 1990 have failed to reign in the Royal Nepal Army. It is no surprise, then, if the RNA is attempting to turn into a corporation, as C.K. Lal alleges. The assertion that the king is under the impression that the army is still solely his is open to speculation, but it must also be acknowledged that the army survives on the tax-payer's money and not on a private or royal grant. The government therefore cannot wash its hand off its constitutional responsibil-ity of running the army within the legal framework of the nation.Successive governments have approved all major decisions concerning the army, and without cabinet approval. The army is still largely run with an antiquated and ossified mind-set. Transparency is practically non-existent, syco-phancy and nepotism is actively nurtured and personal whims and fancies have precedence over sound reasoning. If good governance and rule of law are to prevail, the army should be run by laws and regulations published in the gazette. Why is an elected government so inefficient or incapable that it cannot even ensure that one of its branches-the army-sticks to rules?

Gyan J. Thapa
Kathmandu



I agree that the army should not venture into capital market (C.K. Lal #10). A bank for the army is fine but commercial banks is altogether another prospect.But Mr Lal contradicts himself. If, as he says, the army is buying unnecessary equipment, and a poor country like ours cannot spend so much money, why can't the army venture into commercial business to sustain itself, and free itself from all the politics and hassles? The army is for the country and as long as it serves the nation, the Nepali people should have no problems. It seems Mr Lal does not like the army very much and refers politicians, even though the money politicians have misutilised runs into billions of rupees. And why is it acceptable for the army to be involved in infrastructure develop-ment and rescue efforts, but not in running a bank?

Arun Khadka
Kathmandu