Barack Obama, Martti Ahtisaari, Al Gore, Muhammad Yunus, Mohamed ElBaradei and the list goes on. A total of 97 individuals and 20 Organisations have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize since 1901. Among the Nobel Prize recipients, some have made remarkable contributions to restore peace in the world and some have created the environment to check direct confrontations leading to serious conflicts. Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi got the peace prize for their non violence approach while Al Gore received the prize for his initiative for climate change and Yunus for improving the lives of poor people of Bangladesh. So the Peace Prize is awarded on varied reasons.
Nepal’s government has recommended the name of Girija Prasad Koirala for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the bloody conflicts of the Maoists that claimed the lives of more than 14,000 people in Nepal, and peaceful exit of the monarchy that ruled the Himalayan nation for over 240 years.
Why does he deserve the Peace Prize?
Peaceful End of Monarchy & Insurgency
The most significant achievements of Koirala in Nepal’s political history is abolishing monarchy peacefully and bringing the Maoists to the mainstream politics ending the decade long insurgency which claimed the lives of more than 14,000, injured thousands of people and nearly collapsed the economy of the country.
The monarchy of Nepal exit out of the political scene despite its strong grip in the Nepal army. Koirala played the game for this peaceful departure of the 240 year old institution, which was the source of instability of Nepal and enemy to democracy. First, he insisted the revival of the parliament then cut the links of the Nepal army with the palace and created rosy road for democracy.
Prior to it, Koirala had held talks with the Maoists when he was not in power and the rebels were declared terrorist. He did not care his political life while holding talks with this “terrorist” declared group. Even holding talks with them could be considered aligning with the terrorists. India, USA and other countries had also declared them terrorist so there was the possibility of serious threat to any political party leaders to be accused of being a terrorist and face the consequences. But Koirala did not care.
Koirala also convinced the UML and other major political parties on his agenda of bringing the Maoists to the peace process and signed a peace deal ending ten year long conflict- the biggest conflict in the history of Nepal. Koirala had held talks through intermediaries when he was in power. His assessment was that one of the groups of the Maoists was ready to hold talks for the sake of democracy with the government while the other which was closed to the Palace was against.
This was not the first time that Koirala had initiated talks with the Maoists. Speaking from a public programme in Kathmandu just a few days before the dissolution of the parliament, Koirala made an open request to the Maoists to hold talks with the political parties represented in the parliament. Immediately after his request, Maoists said that they were ready to hold talks with the parties- not with the government. But now ousted King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament ending the resolution of the conflicts forever and invited his own destruction. However, Koirala fulfilled his goal. He brought the Maoists to the parliament, he led the government including the Maoists and he held election peacefully. Once elected to the parliament, the Maoists are obliged to follow peaceful democratic process. This is a great achievement.
Adherence to Democracy
Girija Prasad Koirala always adhered to the principles of democratic values and norms despite the difficulties he himself, his family and his party- the Nepali Congress- faced since his childhood. His unwavering struggle for democracy and its values makes him the fitting candidate for the prize. He has struggled for the sake of democracy since his childhood. Though he is the brother of BP Koirala, the first elected prime minister of Nepal, Girija has made history himself even without connecting his name to his family or friends. He was behind the movement of the labourers of the first factory of Nepal- Jute mills. He struggled since the dictatorial regime of the Ranas and then kings. Koirala struggled to end Rana regime, then his struggled continued with the Kings- Tribhuvan, Mahendra, Birendra and Gyanendra. He never compromised against democracy. Koirala is perhaps the first person in the democratic history of the world where he has struggled with four kings for democracy. He never compromised for anything for the cause of democracy. He held talks with the Kings. He bargained and threatened but never compromised. His sole goal of struggle was- full- fledged democracy.
Commitment to Peace and Non-violence
His zeal for peace and non violence is never questioned. When security personnel resorted to Lathi charge and fired some rounds of bullets to control the crowds of democrats in Kathmandu during the anti Gyanendra demonstration, the octogenarian leader was injured. He fainted. People saw him bleeding in the nose. His supporters wanted to take revenge and continue the protest even taking weapons if need be. He did not allow them to continue protest saying the situation could be violent. Thousands of people came down to the streets across the country during the climax of popular movement demanding the end of monarchy, Koirala cancelled the demonstrations fearing the demonstrations could be violent and uncontrollable. He cancelled the Satyagraha programme after the mysterious bomb explosions killed some people in Kathmandu.
Despite the harsh measure adopted by the dictatorial regimes of the Kings, he always adopted the policy of non violence. The struggle for democracy remained peaceful in most of the cases of Nepal. Nepali Congress waged armed rebellions to end the authoritarian rule of Mahendra, who not only massacred the nascent democracy of the Himalayan nation and plunged the nation into the crisis but also dissolved the first elected parliament, sacked the popularly elected prime minister and imposed autocratic rules closing the doors of freedom of the people. Despite his harsh and cruel suppression of the democratic movement, the Congress party adopted peaceful struggles to end his rule.
When there was armed struggled against the monarchy, it was directly targeted to the king- not to the general public. Not a single innocent person was killed by the Nepali Congress. The armed rebellion was to end the monarchy rule in Nepal. The confrontation was directly with the king and his army, who supported the king. The 30 year of struggle against the King during the Panchayat system remained peaceful. It was not like the killing of mostly innocent people during the 1996- 2006 Maoists insurgency.
Firm in Purpose
After Gyanendra dissolved parliament and declared direct rule, Koirala relentlessly advocated and push forward the one point demand: “revival of the parliament.” Not a single political figure neither from his own party- the Nepali Congress- nor CPN, UML had said so. The parliament should get full-fledged time to complete its tenure and parliament should have the rights to take decision on important issues, was his logic. He succeeded. The revival of the parliament to end the conflict peacefully being within the constitutional framework was very important. He did.
Koirala has never deviated from his struggle to restore democracy in Nepal. He was firm to the purpose of democracy and came to the streets immediately after the massacre of democracy in 1960s. His struggle continued until democracy was restored in 1990. Even after the restoration of democracy he always warned saying there was threat of the King, who could end democracy at any time.
No to Monarchy
He never compromised with monarchy on the issue of democracy. Though he was humiliated, he was made isolated; he did not cease the struggle to end monarchy.
His uncompromising policy for the sake of democracy was also clearly revealed when CPN, UML decided to support the king saying the “regression of the king has been half rectified.” His party was split. A sizeable number of his party cadres had joined Sher Bahadur Deuba led party and government and the main party the UML also joined with Deuba and formed the government giving up the street protest. Koirala and his party was left alone in the street in the fight against then King Gyanendra. There were only smaller parties: Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party and United Peoples Front. These were also very small parties with less than a dozen MPs and all were Communist parties. There was the support of a few people. Only a handful of people could be seen in the demonstration. But he continued never being deviated from his declared goal of democracy. Koirala continued the struggle. Other UML and Deuba led Congress party came again to join his struggle only when the king sacked their government.
Able Leader
Koirala was the consensus candidate when parliament was restored. He was the unanimous candidate for prime minister for Maoists, UML and other parties. He led the first government including the Maoists after the parliament was restored. He is the first prime minister to take over the role of head of state because of his able leadership.
When Koirala said that the victory for democracy is the victory of all. There was hooting and sloganeering against Koirala but he was firm in his statement. That came to be true later when royalists became prime ministers one after another. After the revival of the parliament and success of the popular movement, Koirala went to the palace to take oath with then King Gyanendra , there was protest, but he was firm and followed the constitutional provision. There could be confrontation with the palace and nation could plunge again into the mires of conflicts. But he sensed that possibility and followed constitutional procedures and following that he drowned monarchy into the pages of history.
Leaders with ability do not make statement according to the slogans of the crowds, but they do what their declared policy is, otherwise it becomes anarchical party like some other party leaders, who say or agree on some point and change their statement when they are in crowds. Koirala is the only strong leader in Nepal’s modern history who translated his words into action. He challenged the king and threatened not to weaken democracy. There is no need to explain why Koirala is the only strong leader as we have seen at least the modern time prime ministers of Nepal and their abilities and leadership. He did what he said. His actions were supported by his statement. So he is an able leader.
Nepal’s Face
Koirala is the most trusted and honoured leader even outside the country. India, China and other countries trust him as the most reliable and able leader. Though he is blamed to be very close to India, he has been able to maintain balanced relations with both the neighbours. Indian Prime Minister Dr Man Mohan Singh came to welcome him to the airport when he visited India two years ago. Indian Prime Minister does not go to airport to welcome any leader except US president. It is due to the high regards for Koirala.
When Non Aligned Movement summit was held in Durban, South Africa, Nelson Mandela as a president was the chairman of NAM. He had to greet 114 member countries representatives. So it was just hand shake for those leaders. But he gave some time and held talks with Koirala for some minutes. Mandela had held talks with only Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, Cuban President Fidel Castro and Colombia’s president, who was the outgoing chairman of NAM. Nepal’s image enhanced with such event.
Resignation
Despite being in majority, he resigned from the prime minister’s post on moral ground. He resigned when then King Birendra refused to deploy army to quell the Maoists insurgency which had spiralled throughout the country. There was clear conspiracy from the king. The police were not given weapon when the Maoists were attacking police station in many districts of western Nepal. Maoists were getting modern arms and ammunition. Maoists were raising war to end monarchy but the monarchy was being the wall to stop any measures targeted to defeat them. So he resigned on moral ground.
When his own party MPs were absent and defeated the government’s programme in the first elected parliament, Koirala called the meeting of the parliamentary party. He had the support of the majority of the MPs of his party. At least 74 MPs expressed their support and 36 were against him. He resigned from the post of prime minister and called election to maintain the norms of democracy. Koirala had the largest number of MPs’ support than the main opposition party UML with 69 MPs. And still he was the parliamentary party leader. So his decision was constitutional and valid in democracy.
Exposure of Palace Conspiracy
In the view of Koirala, Maoist rebellion was a conspiracy initiated to end democracy by the palace. Close aides of Koirala say: he had expressed his views even during the meeting with then King Birendra. Maoist’s movement was launched when Koirala was not in power. When he became prime minister, he started the policy of dialogue with the Maoists but the Maoists refused to hold talks with Koirala saying him the “Fascist.” Maoists wanted to hold talks with the government if Koirala was not in power- so was the desire of the palace. It was a clear indication of palace’s motive. Palace wanted some other prime minister instead of Koirala because he was not ready to compromise anything regarding democracy. The palace was playing double role to end democracy in Nepal. It was encouraging the Maoists on the one hand and inciting the government to suppress the Maoists movement on the other.
Koirala neither said Maoists are terrorists nor them to be democrats but he brought them to the peace process. Koirala was accused of being Fascist by Maoists. Maoists refused to hold talks with him. He resigned. Talks failed. Maoists needed him to bring them from the forest. He extended his hands again. He convinced them. Brought them and led them. And became their leader too.
Koirala's Weaknesses
On the contrary, Koirala has many weaknesses too. He could not expose the palace conspiracy against democracy though he became prime minister for many years in Nepal. In private, time and again he said that there was conspiracy of the palace to brandish Maoists but he did not reveal it publicly.
He became too liberal to the Maoists as he could not understand their strategies. His party lost the election despite his role in the peace process.
Koirala was the prime minister when the royal palace massacre happened but he could not bring out the truth to the public. He said that he would expose palace massacre but he never did. Koirala knew the incident only after 3 hours when the physical distance of his residence and the palace is less than 5 minutes. He was in a state of arrest at the army hospital and all the fingers were pointed to the relatives of Birendra but Koirala turned deaf and did not do anything. He could at least form a parliamentary committee, bring foreign independent investigators, properly investigate the incident and bring the truth to the public. He failed to do so due to his feel of affection for the post.
There is accusation to Koirala running the party like a private family. He has compelled the Prime Minister to appoint his daughter as deputy prime minister despite being so many able leaders in his party and in his Koirala clan too. He takes the decision on his own without consulting the senior leaders of the party and the most serious blame is: Koirala was too liberal toward Maoists. It became true too. After the election, Maoists deceived him. However, some political observers say it was the compulsion of the time.
Despite these weaknesses, any of the contemporary political leaders has not been able to do what Koirala did despite his age and all other adverse circumstances. There was the need of able leadership for the party; there was only Koirala who could fulfil all these responsibilities effectively. Some were tested and failed. Some could not take the responsibility. Then such accusation does not have any foundation. And all political party leaders cannot be Mandela. Nepal’s situation was different. There was monarchy creating instability and there are many parties with various interests and affiliation in this country between India and China.
In view of Koirala’s contribution to Nepal’s democratic movement, abolition of monarchy, bringing Maoists to the peace process and ending conflict, he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Also click the following links to read this article:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4889948-why-does-girija-koirala-deserve-nobel-peace-prize
http://www.dcnepal.me/press_release_english.php?nid=802
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
DR ADHIKARI NEW DIRECTOR OF CNS UK
Annual General Meeting of the Centre for Nepal Studies UK (CNSUK) held in London on December 28th, 2009 has appointed Dr Krishna Adhikari as its new Executive Director.
Dr Raju Babu Shrestha is the Company Secretary while Dr Chandra Laksamba, Dr Govind Dahal, Mr Lokendra Dhakal , Anand Bhandari and Dr Sondra Hausner have been selected as the board of directors and members.
Outgoing Executive Director Dr Dahal submitted a brief report on previous activities of the CNSUK while Mr Bhandari presented financial report at the meeting chaired by Co-ordinator Dr Laksamba.
Dr Adhikari presented goals and strategies for new terms of the CNSUK. Expressing satisfaction on the success achieved on academic and research field concerning issues of Nepali Disapora in the UK, the meeting decided to expand its activities. The plan stressed to promote the publications and disseminations of CNSUK’s research outcome related to Nepal.
The AGM discussed about the publication of a book (Monograph) based on recent “census” project, publish journal articles based on CNSUK’s existing and future research and initiate a half-yearly e-journal.
The AGM has also decided to initiate small scale researches in collaboration with existing partners on affairs directly concerning Nepalese in the UK or at home, complete existing research projects and seek for grants for a large scale project in partnership with other UK institutions.
Likewise, the meeting has proposed to encourage other non-stakeholder professionals to develop and implement projects through CNSUK as a UK host institution. The AGM has extended vote of thanks to partner organisations, Nepalese community leaders and members for their support so far.
Recently, CNSUK, in collaboration with NRNUK (and with the support from various Nepalese community organisations, community leaders and individuals) conducted “Census” of Nepalese Ethnic Minority in the UK. According to the preliminary result, the number of Nepalese ethnic minority in the UK is 72,173 by the end of 2008.
Since October 2009, CNSUK is working in partnership with Oxford University for a study on "Vernacular Religion: Varieties of Religiosity in the Nepali Diaspora.” Similarly, CNSUK is going to publish telephone directory of Nepalese or related individuals, businesses and organisations in the UK.
CNSUK has been working in partnership with Britain Nepal Academic Council and various other academic institutions in the UK.
Dr Raju Babu Shrestha is the Company Secretary while Dr Chandra Laksamba, Dr Govind Dahal, Mr Lokendra Dhakal , Anand Bhandari and Dr Sondra Hausner have been selected as the board of directors and members.
Outgoing Executive Director Dr Dahal submitted a brief report on previous activities of the CNSUK while Mr Bhandari presented financial report at the meeting chaired by Co-ordinator Dr Laksamba.
Dr Adhikari presented goals and strategies for new terms of the CNSUK. Expressing satisfaction on the success achieved on academic and research field concerning issues of Nepali Disapora in the UK, the meeting decided to expand its activities. The plan stressed to promote the publications and disseminations of CNSUK’s research outcome related to Nepal.
The AGM discussed about the publication of a book (Monograph) based on recent “census” project, publish journal articles based on CNSUK’s existing and future research and initiate a half-yearly e-journal.
The AGM has also decided to initiate small scale researches in collaboration with existing partners on affairs directly concerning Nepalese in the UK or at home, complete existing research projects and seek for grants for a large scale project in partnership with other UK institutions.
Likewise, the meeting has proposed to encourage other non-stakeholder professionals to develop and implement projects through CNSUK as a UK host institution. The AGM has extended vote of thanks to partner organisations, Nepalese community leaders and members for their support so far.
Recently, CNSUK, in collaboration with NRNUK (and with the support from various Nepalese community organisations, community leaders and individuals) conducted “Census” of Nepalese Ethnic Minority in the UK. According to the preliminary result, the number of Nepalese ethnic minority in the UK is 72,173 by the end of 2008.
Since October 2009, CNSUK is working in partnership with Oxford University for a study on "Vernacular Religion: Varieties of Religiosity in the Nepali Diaspora.” Similarly, CNSUK is going to publish telephone directory of Nepalese or related individuals, businesses and organisations in the UK.
CNSUK has been working in partnership with Britain Nepal Academic Council and various other academic institutions in the UK.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
PENNY FOR NEPAL TO HELP CHILDREN
Youths in Reading, United Kingdom have launched a programme “a penny for Nepal” with a view to providing support in education and health for the poor children of Nepal.
Altogether 14 Nepalese youths living in Reading have established the “child-focussed development organisation with no religious, political or governmental affiliations” to work with children, their families and helping to implement projects in Health, Education, Water and Sanitation in Nepal.
The charity has been registered in the UK and they have launched the website It says: “Its objectives are to relieve poverty and distress and advance the education and health of the children of Nepal by the provision of financial assistance and a sponsorship scheme and by such other charitable purposes for the benefit of the children as the trustees shall in their absolute discretion from time to time determine.”
Bal Krishna Dahal, one of the founders of the charity, said members of the charity have launched massive campaign for fund raising and have distributed nearly 400 “a penny collection pots” in Reading, Aldershot, Farnborough, Plumstead, London and other areas where a large number of Nepalese live, and members have donated certain amount of fund for the needy children of Nepal.
“We will collect the necessary amounts once we get proposal from Nepal,” Dahal said. “Our main target is rural remote areas of Nepal, he said, adding that those who are living under the burden of poverty and have not been able to get basic of the basic rights like education, health and sanitation.
The youths’ vision is to live in a world in which all Nepalese children have the opportunity to realise their potential in societies, which respect people's rights and dignities.
The ambitious goals of this charity say the founders, is to relieve poverty and distress and advance the education and health of the children of Nepal by the provision of financial assistance and a sponsorship scheme.
The initiative of the Nepalese youths has been well appreciated by other youths and Nepalese communities in the United Kingdom.
Altogether 14 Nepalese youths living in Reading have established the “child-focussed development organisation with no religious, political or governmental affiliations” to work with children, their families and helping to implement projects in Health, Education, Water and Sanitation in Nepal.
The charity has been registered in the UK and they have launched the website It says: “Its objectives are to relieve poverty and distress and advance the education and health of the children of Nepal by the provision of financial assistance and a sponsorship scheme and by such other charitable purposes for the benefit of the children as the trustees shall in their absolute discretion from time to time determine.”
Bal Krishna Dahal, one of the founders of the charity, said members of the charity have launched massive campaign for fund raising and have distributed nearly 400 “a penny collection pots” in Reading, Aldershot, Farnborough, Plumstead, London and other areas where a large number of Nepalese live, and members have donated certain amount of fund for the needy children of Nepal.
“We will collect the necessary amounts once we get proposal from Nepal,” Dahal said. “Our main target is rural remote areas of Nepal, he said, adding that those who are living under the burden of poverty and have not been able to get basic of the basic rights like education, health and sanitation.
The youths’ vision is to live in a world in which all Nepalese children have the opportunity to realise their potential in societies, which respect people's rights and dignities.
The ambitious goals of this charity say the founders, is to relieve poverty and distress and advance the education and health of the children of Nepal by the provision of financial assistance and a sponsorship scheme.
The initiative of the Nepalese youths has been well appreciated by other youths and Nepalese communities in the United Kingdom.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
NEPALI HSMP DISCUSS BUSINESS ISSUE
Nepali Highly Skilled Migrants have floated the idea of launching entrepreneurship business in the United Kingdom and expanding the regional committees and form a national level coordination committee with a view to strengthening its programme.
An extensive deliberation was held at the joint initiative of Nepali HSMP Forum Reading and South East London at Kathmandu Kitchen, Reading on 3rd May.
Though the exact figures of the Nepali HSMP migrants living in the UK is not known, it is estimated that there are about 500 migrants among them 145 engineers and 40 lawyers are affiliated to their respective organisations.
Presenting a joint paper on organising HSMP Group of the Nepalese HSMP migrants, Coordinator of HSMP South East London Yadav Shrestha and Co-Treasurer of HSMP Forum Ltd Dipak Gautam shed light on the contributions of the Nepalese HSMP migrants in the fight against the retrospective rule of the Home Office.
There are opportunities for the HSMP due to the increasing number of Nepalese community in the UK, they said. Instable policy of the government, credit crunch and the discrimination to the migrants, are the lists of threat the Nepalese migrants have to face like the HSMP migrants from other countries, Mr Gautam and Mr Shrestha said.
Networking of professional career, professional networking, cultural promotion, and formation of formal or informal national and regional level organisation or coordination committee to strengthen the activities of the Nepalese HSMP migrants should be the strategies of the HSMP, they said. It is decided that the formation of such committee will be made after holding formal and informal extensive discussion among the HSMP migrants.
Similarly, Samir Pyakurel and Lekhnath Bhandari presenting paper on Entrepreneurship and Business, shed light on Credit Union Ltd, which can be launched with a limited number of members and capital.
Informing about the Credit Union, Mr Pyakurel said its main sources of income is from members savings, juvenile deposit, borrowing from financial institutions and grants from various institutions.
“This is the demand of the time and like the cooperative of the Nepal”, he said and added that this is a mutual membership based financial institution regulated by the Credit Union Act of 1979. This will help make regular savings, learn new skills and unite the Nepalese community in a common bond that is one of the criteria of the Union, he said.
Mr Pyakurel and Mr Bhandari, who have wealth of experience in accounting and banking in Nepal, said this is fully regulated by the FSA, there is a deposit limit of 10,000 or 1.5 percent whichever is the greater, dividend to the members, invest to juvenile, interests and cost free grants among others.
Mr Pyakurel also shed light on the registration process for the credit union and it can be opened if there are sufficient evidences that the regular savings can be made and at least 21 members are ready to invest. The first part of the programme was chaired by Dr Nabin Acharya, Co-ordinator of HSMP Forum Reading and the second phase programme was chaired by Mr Yadav Shrestha, Co-ordinator of HSMP South East London while the programme was conducted by Anand Bhandari.
Dr Sitaram Basnet, Krishna Paudel, who has recently completed PhD from the University of Reading and Tank Niraula, who is a PhD Student of the University of Bristol, commented on both the papers and provided some feedback while some members of the HSMP participating at the programme presented their views, opinions and suggestions.
This is the first time that the Nepali HSMP held such a discussion to take initiative to start business and strengthening their activities. About 25 HSMP migrants participated in the programme.
Nepali Highly Skilled Migrants have floated the idea of launching entrepreneurship business in the United Kingdom and expanding the regional committees and form a national level coordination committee with a view to strengthening their programme.
An extensive deliberation was held at the joint initiative of Nepali HSMP Forum Reading and South East London at Kathmandu Kitchen, Reading on 3rd May.
Though the exact figures of the Nepali HSMP migrants living in the UK is not known, it is estimated that there are about 500 migrants among them 145 engineers and 40 lawyers are affiliated to their respective organisations.
Presenting a joint paper on organising HSMP Group of the Nepalese HSMP migrants, Coordinator of HSMP South East London Yadav Shrestha and Co-Treasurer of HSMP Forum Ltd Dipak Gautam shed light on the contributions of the Nepalese HSMP migrants in the fight against the retrospective rule of the Home Office.
There are opportunities for the HSMP due to the increasing number of Nepalese community in the UK, they said. Instable policy of the government, credit crunch and the discrimination to the migrants, are the lists of threat the Nepalese migrants have to face like the HSMP migrants from other countries, Mr Gautam and Mr Shrestha said.
Networking of professional career, professional networking, cultural promotion, and formation of formal or informal national and regional level organisation or coordination committee to strengthen the activities of the Nepalese HSMP migrants should be the strategies of the HSMP, they said. It is decided that the formation of such committee will be made after holding formal and informal extensive discussion among the HSMP migrants.
Similarly, Samir Pyakurel and Lekhnath Bhandari presenting paper on Entrepreneurship and Business, shed light on Credit Union Ltd, which can be launched with a limited number of members and capital.
Informing about the Credit Union, Mr Pyakurel said its main sources of income is from members savings, juvenile deposit, borrowing from financial institutions and grants from various institutions.
“This is the demand of the time and like the cooperative of the Nepal”, he said and added that this is a mutual membership based financial institution regulated by the Credit Union Act of 1979. This will help make regular savings, learn new skills and unite the Nepalese community in a common bond that is one of the criteria of the Union, he said.
Mr Pyakurel and Mr Bhandari, who have wealth of experience in accounting and banking in Nepal, said this is fully regulated by the FSA, there is a deposit limit of 10,000 or 1.5 percent whichever is the greater, dividend to the members, invest to juvenile, interests and cost free grants among others.
Mr Pyakurel also shed light on the registration process for the credit union and it can be opened if there are sufficient evidences that the regular savings can be made and at least 21 members are ready to invest.
The first part of the programme was chaired by Dr Nabin Acharya, Co-ordinator of HSMP Forum Reading and the second phase programme was chaired by Mr Yadav Shrestha, Co-ordinator of HSMP South East London while the programme was conducted by Anand Bhandari.
Dr Sitaram Basnet, Krishna Paudel, who has recently completed PhD from the University of Reading and Tank Niraula, who is a PhD Student of the University of Bristol, commented on both the papers and provided some feedback while some members of the HSMP participating at the programme presented their views, opinions and suggestions.
This is the first time that the Nepali HSMP held such a discussion to take initiative to start business and strengthening their activities. About 25 HSMP migrants participated in the programme.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
HSMP FORUM LTD CELEBRATES COURT VICTORY
The Highly Skilled Migrants living across the United Kingdom gathered at Warwick, Picadilly Circus in London on 18th April to celebrate the victory of the HSMP on the issue of ILR from 5 to 4 year.
The High Court on April 6 declared the Home Office's decision to increase the ILR period from 4 to 5 year as "unlawful."
Present at the programme were a large number of HSMP immigrants including Amit Kapadia, Executive Director of the HSMP Forum Limited, which initiated the case against the Home Office not to implement rules "retrospectively."
Participants from London, South East, Reading, Farnborough, Plumstead and other parts of the UK had gathered to celebrate the court victory.
The participants of the court victory celebration applauded the court verdict. There was remarkable presence of the Nepalese HSMP migrants, who played significant role to support the HSMP Forum Limited during the case.
In a verdict on April 6, justice Mrs Cox DBE had said: "I conclude, therefore, that it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene."
UK government has retrospectively changed the HSMP rules since it began in 2003. The HSMP migrants had also won the case last year.
All the retrospective changes were nullified by the court. However, the Home Office refused the visa of those immigrants who had applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK after completing 4 years.
"The justice said:"It was made clear during the hearing, as I have already stated, that the Secretary of State accepts that it is necessary to deal with the individuals who were members of the scheme before April 2006. She accepts too that no individuals should be disadvantaged in relation to being removed from the UK and in relation to being asked to pay an additional fee. However, in my judgment, the proposed policy referred to in the letter of 19 February 2009 does not go far enough, for the reasons I have given."
After the court verdict, Amit Kapadia, Executive Director of HSMP Forum had expressed his satisfaction on the outcome of the legal challenge, which was initiated after pursuing the Border and Immigration Agency to make provision in the July 2008 policy document for those migrants who were admitted in the HSMP scheme before April 2006 to obtain settlement after 4 years.
Mr Kapadia had said “Government's decision to ignore these representations made by HSMP Forum lead to the legal challenge, which means that the taxpayer will pay the costs of tens of thousands of pounds towards legal proceedings. The Home Office’s continued attempts to apply policies which cannot withstand legal scrutiny only suggests that there is a dearth of skilled policy makers and Ministers. HSMP Forum hopes that the Home Office will learn its lessons and avoid a repetition of applying such unlawful retrospective legislations in the future.”
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
NEW YEAR CELEBRATION IN UK
Nepalese living in various parts of the United Kingdom have welcomed the New Year 2066 organising various cultural and social programmes wishing for peace, progress and prosperity in Nepal.
Greater Reading Nepalese Community Association (GRNCA) organised a get together at Community Hall in London Road to mark the occasion just two days before the New Year 2066.
A large number of Nepalese living in Reading, London and surrounding areas attended the programme which continued for more than 6 hours.
Nepalese traditional dance representing various ethnic communities of Nepal, Nepali folk, modern and pop songs were sung by Nepalese artiste on the occasion.
Small children, students, youths and elderly people all joined hand together to celebrate the New Year. Bhajan was recited by Dipak Chalise and Krishna Neupane read out poem wishing the environment of peace, consolidation of democracy and economic prosperity of Nepal at the programme.
Traditional Nepali foods were served and dance continued until midnight. The attraction of the programme was that some UK nationals were present in Daura Suruwal and cap, Nepali national dress.
GRNCA also felicitated Dr Sitaram Basnet, who has completed PhD on gender issue of Nepal, from the University of Reading this year.
Speaking on the occasion, president of the GRNCA Mahesh Gurung wished that the New Year will be a year of peace and democracy in Nepal. He stressed the need of unity among the Nepalese living in the United Kingdom.
General Secretary of the GRNCA Kirti Pant and artistes Bhimsen Khadka, Pushpa Dahal, Rubin Shrestha among others presented their views and songs on the occasion. It is estimated that about 5,000 Nepalese mostly ex Gurkhas, highly skilled migrants and students live in Greater Reading area.
Similarly, a programme was organised by Yeti Association in Alperton, London. A large number of Nepalese living in various parts of the UK including officiating ambassador Jhabindra Aryal, president of the NRN UK Dambar Ghale and representatives of various political, cultural and ethnic organisations attended the programme.
A disgruntled group led by Umesh Moktan, who was defeated in the election of Yeti Association last year, staged a peaceful demonstration with placards outside the venue demanding the fair review of the election.
Likewise, Nepalese Nursing Association, UK organised a cultural programme on the eve of the New Year at Copland School, Wembley, and London. Nearly 500 people attended the attractive cultural programme. There are a large number of Nurses working in the United Kingdom.
Singers Om Pradhan, Sarmila Bardewa and a host of others presented the songs amidst the dancing of youths on the occasion. There are reports of celebration of the New Year in Farnborough, Folkestone, Plumstead, London, Richmond, North Yorkshire, Manchester, Peterborough, Aldershot, Swindon, Maidstone, Scotland and other parts.
The exact figures of the Nepalese is not available, it is estimated that around 100,000 Nepalese live in various parts of the United Kingdom and most of them are ex Gurkhas, students, highly skilled migrants, doctors and nurses.
News by Chiranjibi Paudyal
Photos by Ashish Rijal
Thursday, April 9, 2009
WHY DOES THE UK CHANGE IMMIGRATION RULE TIME AND AGAIN?
What will be the image of UK government when the highly skilled migrants have to knock the door of the court to get justice each and everytime?
The skilled migrants, who have made significant contributions in their fields of expertise, were issued visa only after fulfiling the criteria set by the Home Office.
The frequent change of HSMP rules since it was introduced in 2003 has not only created problems to the highly skilled migrants and their family members but also raised question about the motive of the UK government and degraded its image.
Everyone knows that the government has the right and authority to amend rules in accordance with its needs and interests but no one understands why such rules are being promulgated retrospectively.
Look at the immigration rules of the USA government. How many times have they changed? They even provide visa selecting through lottery process. But they don’t need to change it for years.
What has Canada done? They have the same provision for many years. The same point basis. 67 points are counted based on educational qualification, work experience, Canada work experience or qualification and relatives living in Canada. That is there for many years. Any one can get permanent residency after completing 3 years. No change at all.
Australia and New Zealand have also the same system. There is no frequent change in immigration rules. At least the change does not apply retrospectively.
United Kingdom says that it has followed the Australian point based system. But it does the opposite. Each and every time we have to knock the door of the court to get justice. Why does UK try to implement the rules retrospectively? Why does the government spend tax payers’ money to penalise the highly skilled migrants?
Either the imperial mentality has not gone or they want to befool the whole world.
The HSMP Forum Ltd said in a statement: “It is an irony that the UK government has once again got its priorities wrong.” “Instead of addressing the issue of illegal and burdensome immigration, government has been penalizing the legal and desirable section of Highly Skilled Migrants, who are making a valuable contribution to UK economy by offering requisite skills, paying all the taxes and at the same time not availing public funds.”
In the words of Amit Kapadia, Director of the HSMP Forum Ltd, is the lack of sensitivity of the issue. In a press release issued after the court verdict on April 6 , Mr. Kapadia said: “The Home Office’s continued attempts to apply policies which cannot withstand legal scrutiny only suggests that there is a dearth of skilled policy makers and Ministers. HSMP Forum hopes that the Home Office will learn its lessons and avoid a repetition of applying such unlawful retrospective legislations in the future.”
It seems that the officials do not know the meaning of justice. The meaning of “Justice” is only for the definition of the judge. What an irony!
We have experienced that it is difficult to get job without ILR, there is problem for mortgage, have to pay international fee for children and there is uncertainty. Then what is the use of extending visa paying so much when the government changes the goal post at its wish trying to make us us all fool. It should be understood that the highly skilled migrants have wealth of experience, skills and knowledge that can be utilised for the economic development of the UK at a time the country is passing through a difficult time of recession.
Laughable joke
The Home Office recently refused visa to the spouse of one of the HSMP friend. The reason was if they were husband and wife then why they had not lived together so long? The difficult question is: “And how can they justify that they are husband and wife?”
What a silly question! Even a child understands that how can they live together when they do not issue visa to the wife.
When all the documents show that they have married, they have a daughter, they share property and have lived together so many years. All documents show that they are wife and husband.
And how can they be together when the visa is rejected? When the Home Office does not trust the documents then it can verify. But how can you prove that you are husband and wife when you don’t trust the evidence and documents?
The friend said in a light manner: “Is there anything that can prove that we are husband and wife except showing the video clips?” “Shall I show them the video clip of our relations?” It is a genuine question. The ultimate evidence that can prove the relationship.
Is that acceptable? Even if it is acceptable to the visa officer, it is not acceptable to others. Where has this society moved for?
If such a question was asked by an authoritarian state then it could be accepted as that happens in that system. But it is being happened in the country of rule of law. In the country of mother of democracy.
After seeing all these injustice game, I asked my Professor, a renowned journalist, who insisted me to apply for the HSMP when I had no idea about the provision. He was insisting me to be in the UK as there was censorship in Nepal after the takeover by Gyanendra.
“Your home office says this and that and brings out rules retrospectively so your advice to apply for the HSMP was wrong,” I asked. His answer was similar to that of the HSMP Forum Ltd. “There is a dearth of skilled policy makers.” Unanimous answer.
My own experience is also the same. It was not necessary to present video clips like my friend has- to prove the relationship with his wife but I had to present my other documents time and again.
When I applied for the HSMP 3 years ago, my application was refused saying that my Nepal’s MA degree in English literature was not recognized in the United Kingdom. I was accepted as a PhD student by the University of Westminster because I had already completed MA degree, and I had several years' work experience in teaching, media and communication.
I had taught English and journalism, worked as the chief editor of state run news agency, became correspondent of Indian newspaper, news agency, American news agency and UNDP. I also worked as a media and political advisor of the ambassador of a major donor country.
I had accompanied the Prime Minister and King during their visit to foreign countries and covered interenational news events, attended seminars and conferences held in various countries around the globe. But they were asking me about my certificate of Nepal.
I had also presented my MA degree in International Journalism certificate of the UK University. But they were asking me about my qualification! What a joke!
Then I had flooded all the documents including NARIC recognition of Nepal’s degree, published articles including in the Guardian, Times, Washington Post, New York Times and so on. I also referred many websites where my articles were published and my photographs shaking hands with Prince Charles and late Princess Diana during their visit to Nepal.
I did not present the photo taken with Nelson Mandela thinking that they would not recognize Mandela as it is a celebrity obsessed country where there is no meaning of reality and quality.
Why UK when there is injustice?
It is the choice of individual. Many people find it easy to be here as nearly 6 dozen countries are under the common wealth so they may have some amenities. For others, because it is centrally located, the value of pound is strong and English language is very popular around the globe. For me, in addition to these, the most attractive attraction was freedom and the country of democracy.
Being a student of English literature, I had a great affection to this country since my College life as most of the great writers and philosophers I read about were from the United Kingdom. Father of English drama, Shakespeare, father of English prose Francis Bacon, leading English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, freedom advocate John Milton, romantic poet William Wordsworth, philosopher Nobel Laureate T.S.Eliott and so many literary figures and thinkers made me think the United Kingdom as the greatest country of the world- not in term of its size after the end of colonialism but in relation to the thinkers who made this country renowned around the world.
This is a country of democracy – known as mother of democracy -because it is this country which implemented democratic values and norms. It is also known as the country of rule of law where the system of democracy has worked since ancient time.
Story does not end there. The country was dignified in my professional career too.
As a journalist, I found this country the most attractive because of freedom. The country had stepped a long stride in the field of freedom. Freedom has not come within a short period of time. There was struggle for freedom of the press since nearly 500 years ago when John Milton wrote Areopagitica in 1644 requesting the parliament against censorship. How attractive this country could be to a journalist of Nepal, where censorship was the essence of journalism. There used to be censorship from the state and the non state actors threatened to take life and journalists were forced to take the secret path of “self censorship.”
Another attraction of this country is that it is centrally located. Europe is the centre of the world and can fly east or west, south or north making it the most comfortable country to travel. Whatever difficulties we have to face, one thing is clear, the judicial system provides justice. It has proved not only once, twice but thrice even in our HSMP case.
A famous poet of the time said about this country:
“Thy not frighten with the smell, taste the tasty ale of the tavern,”
So we should not be frightened with the decision of the officials but we should move ahead strongly with unity to remove the thorny path ahead as the principle of the “survival of the fittest “still aptly applies even today’s age of information technology. Taste can be found only through court.
We – the immigrants- are not the only one group to say that it is unlawful to change rules retrospectively. MPs, leaders, journalists and general public here are also saying the same. Justice Mrs Cox DBE has also the same feeling.
In her verdict, she said: "I conclude, therefore, that it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene”
We can conclude that there "is a dearth of skilled policy makers" and hang over of the colonial past in thE UK that is hindering this country from moving ahead in accordance with the changed context.
The skilled migrants, who have made significant contributions in their fields of expertise, were issued visa only after fulfiling the criteria set by the Home Office.
The frequent change of HSMP rules since it was introduced in 2003 has not only created problems to the highly skilled migrants and their family members but also raised question about the motive of the UK government and degraded its image.
Everyone knows that the government has the right and authority to amend rules in accordance with its needs and interests but no one understands why such rules are being promulgated retrospectively.
Look at the immigration rules of the USA government. How many times have they changed? They even provide visa selecting through lottery process. But they don’t need to change it for years.
What has Canada done? They have the same provision for many years. The same point basis. 67 points are counted based on educational qualification, work experience, Canada work experience or qualification and relatives living in Canada. That is there for many years. Any one can get permanent residency after completing 3 years. No change at all.
Australia and New Zealand have also the same system. There is no frequent change in immigration rules. At least the change does not apply retrospectively.
United Kingdom says that it has followed the Australian point based system. But it does the opposite. Each and every time we have to knock the door of the court to get justice. Why does UK try to implement the rules retrospectively? Why does the government spend tax payers’ money to penalise the highly skilled migrants?
Either the imperial mentality has not gone or they want to befool the whole world.
The HSMP Forum Ltd said in a statement: “It is an irony that the UK government has once again got its priorities wrong.” “Instead of addressing the issue of illegal and burdensome immigration, government has been penalizing the legal and desirable section of Highly Skilled Migrants, who are making a valuable contribution to UK economy by offering requisite skills, paying all the taxes and at the same time not availing public funds.”
In the words of Amit Kapadia, Director of the HSMP Forum Ltd, is the lack of sensitivity of the issue. In a press release issued after the court verdict on April 6 , Mr. Kapadia said: “The Home Office’s continued attempts to apply policies which cannot withstand legal scrutiny only suggests that there is a dearth of skilled policy makers and Ministers. HSMP Forum hopes that the Home Office will learn its lessons and avoid a repetition of applying such unlawful retrospective legislations in the future.”
It seems that the officials do not know the meaning of justice. The meaning of “Justice” is only for the definition of the judge. What an irony!
We have experienced that it is difficult to get job without ILR, there is problem for mortgage, have to pay international fee for children and there is uncertainty. Then what is the use of extending visa paying so much when the government changes the goal post at its wish trying to make us us all fool. It should be understood that the highly skilled migrants have wealth of experience, skills and knowledge that can be utilised for the economic development of the UK at a time the country is passing through a difficult time of recession.
Laughable joke
The Home Office recently refused visa to the spouse of one of the HSMP friend. The reason was if they were husband and wife then why they had not lived together so long? The difficult question is: “And how can they justify that they are husband and wife?”
What a silly question! Even a child understands that how can they live together when they do not issue visa to the wife.
When all the documents show that they have married, they have a daughter, they share property and have lived together so many years. All documents show that they are wife and husband.
And how can they be together when the visa is rejected? When the Home Office does not trust the documents then it can verify. But how can you prove that you are husband and wife when you don’t trust the evidence and documents?
The friend said in a light manner: “Is there anything that can prove that we are husband and wife except showing the video clips?” “Shall I show them the video clip of our relations?” It is a genuine question. The ultimate evidence that can prove the relationship.
Is that acceptable? Even if it is acceptable to the visa officer, it is not acceptable to others. Where has this society moved for?
If such a question was asked by an authoritarian state then it could be accepted as that happens in that system. But it is being happened in the country of rule of law. In the country of mother of democracy.
After seeing all these injustice game, I asked my Professor, a renowned journalist, who insisted me to apply for the HSMP when I had no idea about the provision. He was insisting me to be in the UK as there was censorship in Nepal after the takeover by Gyanendra.
“Your home office says this and that and brings out rules retrospectively so your advice to apply for the HSMP was wrong,” I asked. His answer was similar to that of the HSMP Forum Ltd. “There is a dearth of skilled policy makers.” Unanimous answer.
My own experience is also the same. It was not necessary to present video clips like my friend has- to prove the relationship with his wife but I had to present my other documents time and again.
When I applied for the HSMP 3 years ago, my application was refused saying that my Nepal’s MA degree in English literature was not recognized in the United Kingdom. I was accepted as a PhD student by the University of Westminster because I had already completed MA degree, and I had several years' work experience in teaching, media and communication.
I had taught English and journalism, worked as the chief editor of state run news agency, became correspondent of Indian newspaper, news agency, American news agency and UNDP. I also worked as a media and political advisor of the ambassador of a major donor country.
I had accompanied the Prime Minister and King during their visit to foreign countries and covered interenational news events, attended seminars and conferences held in various countries around the globe. But they were asking me about my certificate of Nepal.
I had also presented my MA degree in International Journalism certificate of the UK University. But they were asking me about my qualification! What a joke!
Then I had flooded all the documents including NARIC recognition of Nepal’s degree, published articles including in the Guardian, Times, Washington Post, New York Times and so on. I also referred many websites where my articles were published and my photographs shaking hands with Prince Charles and late Princess Diana during their visit to Nepal.
I did not present the photo taken with Nelson Mandela thinking that they would not recognize Mandela as it is a celebrity obsessed country where there is no meaning of reality and quality.
Why UK when there is injustice?
It is the choice of individual. Many people find it easy to be here as nearly 6 dozen countries are under the common wealth so they may have some amenities. For others, because it is centrally located, the value of pound is strong and English language is very popular around the globe. For me, in addition to these, the most attractive attraction was freedom and the country of democracy.
Being a student of English literature, I had a great affection to this country since my College life as most of the great writers and philosophers I read about were from the United Kingdom. Father of English drama, Shakespeare, father of English prose Francis Bacon, leading English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, freedom advocate John Milton, romantic poet William Wordsworth, philosopher Nobel Laureate T.S.Eliott and so many literary figures and thinkers made me think the United Kingdom as the greatest country of the world- not in term of its size after the end of colonialism but in relation to the thinkers who made this country renowned around the world.
This is a country of democracy – known as mother of democracy -because it is this country which implemented democratic values and norms. It is also known as the country of rule of law where the system of democracy has worked since ancient time.
Story does not end there. The country was dignified in my professional career too.
As a journalist, I found this country the most attractive because of freedom. The country had stepped a long stride in the field of freedom. Freedom has not come within a short period of time. There was struggle for freedom of the press since nearly 500 years ago when John Milton wrote Areopagitica in 1644 requesting the parliament against censorship. How attractive this country could be to a journalist of Nepal, where censorship was the essence of journalism. There used to be censorship from the state and the non state actors threatened to take life and journalists were forced to take the secret path of “self censorship.”
Another attraction of this country is that it is centrally located. Europe is the centre of the world and can fly east or west, south or north making it the most comfortable country to travel. Whatever difficulties we have to face, one thing is clear, the judicial system provides justice. It has proved not only once, twice but thrice even in our HSMP case.
A famous poet of the time said about this country:
“Thy not frighten with the smell, taste the tasty ale of the tavern,”
So we should not be frightened with the decision of the officials but we should move ahead strongly with unity to remove the thorny path ahead as the principle of the “survival of the fittest “still aptly applies even today’s age of information technology. Taste can be found only through court.
We – the immigrants- are not the only one group to say that it is unlawful to change rules retrospectively. MPs, leaders, journalists and general public here are also saying the same. Justice Mrs Cox DBE has also the same feeling.
In her verdict, she said: "I conclude, therefore, that it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene”
We can conclude that there "is a dearth of skilled policy makers" and hang over of the colonial past in thE UK that is hindering this country from moving ahead in accordance with the changed context.
COURT VICTORY OF HSMP
Highly Skilled Migrants of the United Kingdom have won another case against the Home Office's retrospective provision of increasing the ILR period from 4 to 5 year.
In a verdict on April 6, justice Mrs Cox DBE, said: "I conclude, therefore, that it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene."
UK government has retrospectively changed the HSMP rules since it began in 2002. The HSMP migrants had also won the case last year.
All the retrospective changes were nullified by the court. However, the Home Office refused the visa of those immigrants who had applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK after completing 4 years.
The justice has also quoted the following lines from the Home Office guidelines that clearly shows that the HSMP visa holders can apply for ILR after 4 years.
How long can I stay in the UK if I enter as a skilled migrant?
A: … after 4 years in the UK as a highly skilled migrant you can apply for settlement. The main criteria for settlement will be that you have spent a continuous period of 4 years in the UK (except for trips abroad of 3 months or less, totalling less than 6 months in the 4 year period) in a category leading to settlement and that you continue to be economically active in the UK as a highly skilled migrant."
Another provision was:
I have already applied successfully under HSMP. How does the revised HSMP affect me?
A: Not at all. It is important to note that once you have entered under the programme you are in a category that has an avenue to settlement. Those who have already entered under HSMP will be allowed to stay and apply for settlement after four years qualifying residence regardless of revisions to HSMP."
The justice said:"It was made clear during the hearing, as I have already stated, that the Secretary of State accepts that it is necessary to deal with the individuals who were members of the scheme before April 2006. She accepts too that no individuals should be disadvantaged in relation to being removed from the UK and in relation to being asked to pay an additional fee. However, in my judgment, the proposed policy referred to in the letter of 19 February 2009 does not go far enough, for the reasons I have given. "
She concluded "My provisional view is that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought, but I shall invite submissions from counsel as to the appropriate relief in this case before deciding on the form of the Order."
Hailing the victory, HSMP Forum, a not for profit organisation campaigning for interests of Skilled Migrants in UK, hailed another landmark victory at UK High Court on April 6, 2009. The judgment directs British government to honour its original commitments made to participants of Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
In a press release it said In October 2008, HSMP Forum filed a Judicial Review application which challenged the Home Office on changes to the terms of settlement for the participants of Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. Notable among the changes to these terms was increase of qualifying period for settlement from 4 years to 5 years.
It is an irony that the UK government has once again got its priorities wrong. Instead of addressing the issue of illegal and burdensome immigration, government has been penalising the legal and desirable section of Highly Skilled Migrants, who are making a valuable contribution to UK economy by offering requisite skills, paying all the taxes and at the same time not availing public funds.
April 2008 Sir George Newman in his Judgment stated “I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them.”1 Sir Newman’s judgment clearly implied that Highly Skilled Migrants who were admitted in the HSMP scheme up to November 2006 should be able to obtain settlement as per the criteria or terms which existed at the date they joined the HSMP scheme.
A second Judicial Review was filed after the Home Office refused to make amendments to the settlement criteria for Highly Skilled Migrants in its 9th July 2008 Policy Document, which was supposed to implement the HSMP Forum’s April 2008 Judicial Review Judgment.
Mrs JUSTICE COX DBE in her Judgment today at the high court observed ““The ratio of the decision, in my view, is clear. It was a substantive, legitimate expectation of all those on the HSMP that they would enjoy the benefits of the programme, as they were at the time they joined it. If the judge had been seeking to identify a narrower, legitimate expectation he would have said so.”
She further said “....the existence in this case, as I find, of a substantive, legitimate expectation that the terms on which you joined the HSMP would be the terms on which you qualified for settlement.”
She acknowledged the hardships being faced by the HSMP members due to the delay in settlement, she said “Quite apart from the psychological and emotional impact described, there are references, for example, to financial difficulties caused because of the inability to secure a competitive mortgage without indefinite leave to remain; a continuing lack of good employment or promotional opportunities without indefinite leave; an inability to comply with the travel requirements of employment, due to the scheme restrictions on travel abroad or the need for visas, with consequential career setbacks and affects on CVs; and the necessity now to pay overseas students’ fees for the entirety of the course, for children who were due to start their university courses here after 4 years’ continuous residence and the attainment of settlement. The submission on behalf of the Defendant that there has been no negative impact as a result of the change fails to have regard to the practical realities of people’s private and professional lives and is, in my view, unsustainable.
She further stated “Like Sir George Newman before me, I too am unable to identify a sufficient public interest which justifies a departure from the requirement of good administration and straight forward dealing with the public, or which outweighs the unfairness that the increase in the qualifying period visits upon those already admitted under the scheme.”
“...it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene.”
Amit Kapadia, Executive Director of HSMP Forum expressed his satisfaction on the outcome of the legal challenge, which was initiated after pursuing the Border and Immigration Agency to make provision in the July 2008 policy document for those migrants who were admitted in the HSMP scheme before April 2006 to obtain settlement after 4 years. He said “Government's decision to ignore these representations made by HSMP Forum lead to the legal challenge, which means that the taxpayer will pay the costs of tens of thousands of pounds towards legal proceedings. The Home Office’s continued attempts to apply policies which cannot withstand legal scrutiny only suggests that there is a dearth of skilled policy makers and Ministers. HSMP Forum hopes that the Home Office will learn its lessons and avoid a repetition of applying such unlawful retrospective legislations in the future.”
Camillus Osubor, Head of Policy at HSMP Forum said “HSMP Forum will continue to strive to lobby and challenge any unfair policies which may victimise migrants in the UK.”
Similarly, Co-ordinator of the HSMP Forum Reading Dr Nabin Acharya said that the verdict is the victory against the injustice of the Home Office which has retrospectively imposed rules on the HSMP migrants.
We have been able to get justice only after knocking the door of the court, he said, adding that the Home Office should not repeat this in the future.
About 49,000 HSMP immigrants were inducted to the programme before the introduction of the new rule retrospectively in November 2006. It is expected that among them about 50 percent immigrants and their family members will be benefited directly from the court verdict.
In a verdict on April 6, justice Mrs Cox DBE, said: "I conclude, therefore, that it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene."
UK government has retrospectively changed the HSMP rules since it began in 2002. The HSMP migrants had also won the case last year.
All the retrospective changes were nullified by the court. However, the Home Office refused the visa of those immigrants who had applied for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK after completing 4 years.
The justice has also quoted the following lines from the Home Office guidelines that clearly shows that the HSMP visa holders can apply for ILR after 4 years.
How long can I stay in the UK if I enter as a skilled migrant?
A: … after 4 years in the UK as a highly skilled migrant you can apply for settlement. The main criteria for settlement will be that you have spent a continuous period of 4 years in the UK (except for trips abroad of 3 months or less, totalling less than 6 months in the 4 year period) in a category leading to settlement and that you continue to be economically active in the UK as a highly skilled migrant."
Another provision was:
I have already applied successfully under HSMP. How does the revised HSMP affect me?
A: Not at all. It is important to note that once you have entered under the programme you are in a category that has an avenue to settlement. Those who have already entered under HSMP will be allowed to stay and apply for settlement after four years qualifying residence regardless of revisions to HSMP."
The justice said:"It was made clear during the hearing, as I have already stated, that the Secretary of State accepts that it is necessary to deal with the individuals who were members of the scheme before April 2006. She accepts too that no individuals should be disadvantaged in relation to being removed from the UK and in relation to being asked to pay an additional fee. However, in my judgment, the proposed policy referred to in the letter of 19 February 2009 does not go far enough, for the reasons I have given. "
She concluded "My provisional view is that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought, but I shall invite submissions from counsel as to the appropriate relief in this case before deciding on the form of the Order."
Hailing the victory, HSMP Forum, a not for profit organisation campaigning for interests of Skilled Migrants in UK, hailed another landmark victory at UK High Court on April 6, 2009. The judgment directs British government to honour its original commitments made to participants of Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
In a press release it said In October 2008, HSMP Forum filed a Judicial Review application which challenged the Home Office on changes to the terms of settlement for the participants of Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. Notable among the changes to these terms was increase of qualifying period for settlement from 4 years to 5 years.
It is an irony that the UK government has once again got its priorities wrong. Instead of addressing the issue of illegal and burdensome immigration, government has been penalising the legal and desirable section of Highly Skilled Migrants, who are making a valuable contribution to UK economy by offering requisite skills, paying all the taxes and at the same time not availing public funds.
April 2008 Sir George Newman in his Judgment stated “I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them.”1 Sir Newman’s judgment clearly implied that Highly Skilled Migrants who were admitted in the HSMP scheme up to November 2006 should be able to obtain settlement as per the criteria or terms which existed at the date they joined the HSMP scheme.
A second Judicial Review was filed after the Home Office refused to make amendments to the settlement criteria for Highly Skilled Migrants in its 9th July 2008 Policy Document, which was supposed to implement the HSMP Forum’s April 2008 Judicial Review Judgment.
Mrs JUSTICE COX DBE in her Judgment today at the high court observed ““The ratio of the decision, in my view, is clear. It was a substantive, legitimate expectation of all those on the HSMP that they would enjoy the benefits of the programme, as they were at the time they joined it. If the judge had been seeking to identify a narrower, legitimate expectation he would have said so.”
She further said “....the existence in this case, as I find, of a substantive, legitimate expectation that the terms on which you joined the HSMP would be the terms on which you qualified for settlement.”
She acknowledged the hardships being faced by the HSMP members due to the delay in settlement, she said “Quite apart from the psychological and emotional impact described, there are references, for example, to financial difficulties caused because of the inability to secure a competitive mortgage without indefinite leave to remain; a continuing lack of good employment or promotional opportunities without indefinite leave; an inability to comply with the travel requirements of employment, due to the scheme restrictions on travel abroad or the need for visas, with consequential career setbacks and affects on CVs; and the necessity now to pay overseas students’ fees for the entirety of the course, for children who were due to start their university courses here after 4 years’ continuous residence and the attainment of settlement. The submission on behalf of the Defendant that there has been no negative impact as a result of the change fails to have regard to the practical realities of people’s private and professional lives and is, in my view, unsustainable.
She further stated “Like Sir George Newman before me, I too am unable to identify a sufficient public interest which justifies a departure from the requirement of good administration and straight forward dealing with the public, or which outweighs the unfairness that the increase in the qualifying period visits upon those already admitted under the scheme.”
“...it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to withhold indefinite leave to remain from all those members of the HSMP who were already on the scheme before the 3 April 2006, by reference to a qualifying period of 5 years continuous residence. In the circumstances, since the policy of 9 July 2008 does not so provide, it is unlawful and the Court should intervene.”
Amit Kapadia, Executive Director of HSMP Forum expressed his satisfaction on the outcome of the legal challenge, which was initiated after pursuing the Border and Immigration Agency to make provision in the July 2008 policy document for those migrants who were admitted in the HSMP scheme before April 2006 to obtain settlement after 4 years. He said “Government's decision to ignore these representations made by HSMP Forum lead to the legal challenge, which means that the taxpayer will pay the costs of tens of thousands of pounds towards legal proceedings. The Home Office’s continued attempts to apply policies which cannot withstand legal scrutiny only suggests that there is a dearth of skilled policy makers and Ministers. HSMP Forum hopes that the Home Office will learn its lessons and avoid a repetition of applying such unlawful retrospective legislations in the future.”
Camillus Osubor, Head of Policy at HSMP Forum said “HSMP Forum will continue to strive to lobby and challenge any unfair policies which may victimise migrants in the UK.”
Similarly, Co-ordinator of the HSMP Forum Reading Dr Nabin Acharya said that the verdict is the victory against the injustice of the Home Office which has retrospectively imposed rules on the HSMP migrants.
We have been able to get justice only after knocking the door of the court, he said, adding that the Home Office should not repeat this in the future.
About 49,000 HSMP immigrants were inducted to the programme before the introduction of the new rule retrospectively in November 2006. It is expected that among them about 50 percent immigrants and their family members will be benefited directly from the court verdict.
SACRED THREAD BEARING CEREMONY IN THE UK
With the increase of the number of Nepalese community in the United Kingdom, Nepalese have started to give continuity to their religious and cultural tradition holding various cultural and ritual programmes.
In this connection, Bratabandha, the sacred thread bearing ceremony, of two teenage boys was held at a special ceremony at Hindu temple of Reading. This was the first time that such Bratabandha programme of the Nepalese was held in Reading, according to the priest of the temple.
The joint Bratabandha of Alok Acharya and Prashant Adhikari, sons of Dr Nabin Acharya of Reading and Binod Adhikari of Bracknell respectively , was held amidst an auspicious chanting of sacred mantras of the Hindu scriptures. As per the Hindu tradition, fathers of the boys whispered the Gayatri Mantra to them.
A large number of Nepalese living in the area and other parts of the United Kingdom including visitors from Nepal that included renowned gaenochologist Dr Bhola Rijal attended the ceremony which was appreciated by Nepalese as well as the Indian community living in the area. More than 125 guests attended the ceremony.
Despite the holding of such ceremony in the United Kingdom, where the number of Hindus is very nominal- third largest after Christianity and Muslim- the programme was held fulfilling all the Hindu rituals.
“This has encouraged to all of us and I have also planned to hold the sacred thread ceremony of my son”, said Dr Sitaram Basnet after attending the programme. I was planning to go to Nepal to perform Bratabandha of my teenage son but now I realised that it is appropriate to organise such rituals here in the United Kingdom, he added .
Tanya Shivalingam, a regular visitor of the Reading Hindu temple, said that he was very happy to see that a large number of Nepalese people have started to visit the temple regularly and hold such religious ceremonies to give continuity to their religious and cultural tradition.
Hinduism is the oldest religion of the world with such a great tradition of love, pity, humanity, brotherhood and fraternity, he said, adding that we all should unitedly move ahead for the promotion of our tradition.
Similarly, Bratabandha of two sons of journalist Shashi Paudel was held at his home in Camberley, Farnborough. More than 200 guests including officiating ambassador of Nepal to the United Kingdom Jhabindra Aryal were present at the programme.
The number of Nepalese living in the United Kingdom is estimated to be over 100,000 and most of them are the Gurkhas and their families, students and highly skilled migrants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)