Why is it that the word 'development' in and by itself, holds very little meaning for Nepal. The relationship between Nepal and the 'd' word is determined only by the adjectives used, mostly 'under&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;', 'less-' and most recently 'failed-.' The existence of innumerable prettier and much more attractive adjectives is no secret, it all depends on how committed we are to reach a level where we can truly utilise them.

A recent seminar in Kathmandu highlighted the deficit in the annual financial resource requirement to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). It rightly pointed out that Nepal needs more than triple the amount available now if it is to meet the MDG. Much concern was also expressed that available financial resources are just lying in the treasury while the remaining is sought from various multilateral and bilateral donors, and other international donor agencies and support institutions. How wise is it to maintain the status quo in the name of additional financial resources? Prudence suggests that immediate steps must be initiated to address some, if not all, sectoral goals to help us achieve some MDG goals.

However, waiting for the full amount needed to achieve all this could overwhelm our strained efforts to target all sectors at the same time and drown us in the complexities of development. The adage of trying to swim with the tide may not be appropriate here as there is a tendency for all efforts to be swept away. Perhaps swimming against the tide (poverty) may make us work much harder but at least we reach some sort of dry land (development) from where we can embark upon the path to poverty alleviation.

The lure of swimming with the tide is so great that we fail to realise that there is an alternative. If we are able to easily sustain our search for donors and financial resources in the name of development-and actually achieve success in that area, why then are we so inept in sustaining development? Could it be that swimming with the tide requires less effort and consumes less energy?

It is absolutely imperative for the would-be, could-be and should-be power-centres to make an extra effort, for the sake of the country and our children, to emerge from self-indulgence and lend a helping hand in earning an adjective that does justice to development and Nepal.

Gehendra Purush Dhakal,
email