Submit your Article

Alisha Lamichane did not know much about cameras until a few years ago as she was worried over other things about her future. Now she is busy clicking pictures at various events, earning a decent living off it. Although the idea of women as photographers is still uncommon in Nepal, Lamichane is among a number of women who have of late taken up photography as their career. The credit for this goes to ‘Her Farm Films’ project of The Mountain Fund, a non-profit working for women empowerment.
“I was confused about my life, and felt like I had no purpose. With a camera in my hand, I now feel powerful. In the future, I want to train girls like me in the field of photography and videography,” says Lamichane.

With its programs based in rural Nepal, Her Farm Films encourages women to modernize their traditional farming skills and apply it to new commercial ventures. It also encourages them to learn modern and highly employable skills in the fields of digital and visual arts. It runs training workshops on film production and photography, and trains women to operate FM radio stations. These are saleable skills for women at the local level.

Eight women trained by the project are currently working as photo-and video-graphers. “There is huge demand for photographers for wed-ding and other events,” says Scott MacLennan, founder and executive director of Her Farm Films. “Pho-tographers from Kathmandu are not willing to go to villages, and hardly anyone there has the ability to use camera. Due to this, these women have to work more. Sometimes one photographer has to do three events in a day,” The organization boosts women’s financial empowerment by helping them take up careers beyond the stereotypes of tailoring and running beauty parlors often associated with them. “We aim to change the conversa-tion about woman’s empowerment from low-skill, low-paid work to high-skill, well-paid work,” MacLennan adds. MacLennan’s wife Sunita Sub-edi Sharma, director of the orga-nization’s Nepal Volunteering Pro-grams, recalls how she had to face many difficulties in life—from being an unwanted child in the family to enduring domestic abuse in an arranged marriage. “We established Her Farm Films to show that women can do anything and achieve success,” says Sharma. “I do not want any woman to suffer like I did. If I can pull myself up, why can’t they?”

“Media is a powerful tool to make people hear your story. We thus encourage women to get involved in mainstream media and to motivate others,” she adds. Her Farm Films is also serious about local self-sustenance. It has a guesthouse whose proceeds partially cover organizational costs. Women associated with the project work on the farm, do photography, and help run the guesthouse. They also have volunteers from different countries. 

 This is a cold-cold Nepali winter, with chilly days forecast well into the next few weeks. Sporadic deaths have been reported from the Tarai as those without concrete homes struggle to keep warm. In fact, this is a tragic yearly occurrence. This winter, eight people have lost their lives, en masse, for a different reason. To fight the cold, they had locked themselves into a room with a gas-heater on. The eight Indian nationals, including four minors, who were staying at a resort in Daman, Makawanpur, reportedly asphyxiated to their deaths.

Common sense would dictate that you never go to sleep with a heater on and all the doors and windows shut. In fact, the Indian tourists had no intent of doing so. But when the little children could not sleep because of the biting cold, they were forced to ask the hotel for a gas heater. Although they had booked four rooms, 15 people of the touring party had all huddled into two to keep themselves warm. But why weren’t there enough heating arrangements in a hotel at one of the coldest holiday destinations in Nepal?

This isn’t the first time foreign tourists have died from asphyxiation in Nepali hotel rooms. In December 2013, two Chinese tourists passed away in a hotel room in another popular tourist destination of Nagarkot on the outskirts of Kathmandu. A suspected cause was leakage of gas from a bathroom heater. Meanwhile, the Department of Tourism has set up a probe committee to find out whether there was any negligence on the part of the Daman resort owners where the eight Indians died.

In fact, this should be a wake-up call. A minimum requirement of warm blankets and (working) air-conditioners or some other heating alternatives should be mandatory for all hotels. Apparently, the electric blankets in the resort in Daman had failed to warm, whereupon the tourist party had to ask for a ‘big heater’. There can hardly be a frequent traveler inside Nepal who has not had to put up in cold and dank hotel rooms with filthy bedsheets and blankets. As more and more tourists are coming to Nepal, there is a risk of the hotels and resorts cutting corners to adjust more guests, often by compromising on safety and sanitation. Let this Visit Nepal Year also be the year that our hotels and guesthouses were made safe for all travelers, in all seasons.

First, an old query. Is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS)?

The IPS report was unveiled last June when the Shangri-La Dialogue was underway in Singapore. Unveiled by the US Department of Defense, it included many military components. The document speaks for itself. The same November, the US unveiled its foreign policy which stipulated that the IPS would be a part of the US foreign policy.  

Now, there are debates on whether the MCC is a part of the IPS. When we initiated the process for the MCC, Baburam Bhattarai was the prime minister and Barsha Man Pun the finance minister. They formally requested the US government to make Nepal part of the MCC. On the basis of the request, the American government began to assess if the MCC could be implemented in Nepal. They accessed things like Nepal’s human rights situation, and freedom of speech and expression. In the end, Nepal qualified for the grant.

At the same time, Nepal is in a sensitive place. In terms of both economic and military power, the US and China are competing with each other. We have seen the disputes of South China Sea and Middle East where two countries are competing, and the IPS orientation also demonstrates that competition. China has invested massively in infrastructures of neighboring countries through the BRI.  Therefore, whether we want it or not, whether the Americans accept it or not, the MCC has tried to address the larger geopolitics of this region. That said, the BRI’s objective is to support infrastructure development, and the objective of the MCC is also to help Nepal’s infrastructure development. Therefore, whether it is a part of the IPS should not make huge difference.

Would you say it was an intellectual dishonesty on the part of the US to retrospectively lump the MCC under the IPS?

By denying it is a part of the IPS, the US is becoming too defensive on the MCC. There was no need for that. They are saying that the IPS is their approach in this region. Similarly, the American state minister during his Nepal visit has clearly said that the MCC is a part of the IPS. They have mentioned the IPS as a foreign policy goal of the US government. So there is lack of consistency. They are becoming defensive just to placate public opinion on the MCC in Nepal. They should have clearly said that it is our foreign policy component and the MCC is focused on infrastructure development. From the start, the BRI narrative has been that it is a support for infrastructure development, which has been established as well. The MCC narrative could have been developed in a similar way. 

How do you evaluate the divisions in the ruling party over the MCC grant? Are these divisions based on ideology or have they more to do with intra-party dynamics?

There are two sides to it. Let’s look at our recent political history. Nepali Congress formed majority government in 1990 under Girija Prasad Koirala. For some months, the government ran smoothly but after that a dissatisfied group within the party, under the leadership of Ganesh Man Singh, started protesting against it. The size of the power pie is small and there are limited opportunities for leaders and cadres. More than that, right now, there is a constitutional cap on the number of ministers. In the past, there was a trend of appointing government critics as ministers. PM Oli’s dispensation does not allow for that. Our politics is filled with opportunism over money, power and prestige. Some people outside are always clamoring for their day in the sun.

Next, there could be ideological reasons. NCP leader Bhim Rawal has come up with some points, for instance he has objected to the provision of parliamentary endorsement of the MCC. Like former speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara, a large group of former Maoists are against it. Among former UML leaders, Rawal has been very vocal. So the current divisions over the MCC are partly a clamor for opportunity, and are partly based on ideology.

Is it the case that PM Oli and Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali, as government representatives, feel a kind of pressure from the Americans to endorse the MCC compact?

Successive governments after 2012 have signed to pass the MCC proposal and they all have accepted its conditions.  So if you think responsibly, you cannot backtrack from it. It is also directly related to a superpower. Therefore, we should have had a long and intense discussion before signing it. Yet this discussion is taking place after it has already been signed.  I am saying that this should be seen as one-time exception and be endorsed by the parliament. In the future, if we renew the MCC, there should be renegotiations on some points.

Do you see Chinese pressure behind the opposition to the MCC in Nepal?

I do not think the Chinese have lobbied with the Nepal Communist Party. There is a lot of space to do politics on the MCC. Some are trying to project themselves as nationalists. There is competition inside the party to be seen as nationalists and create space for themselves in politics. But I do not believe that the Chinese have come in a systematic way on this issue.

Coming back to the parliamentary endorsement of the MCC, do you support it?

The most unjustifiable condition of MCC is the parliamentary endorsement. Our constitution clearly lays out two legislative functions of parliament: endorsing bills to make them laws and endorsing treaties and conventions. Either you have to present the MCC accord as bilateral treaty, like the Mahakali Treaty, but it is not a treaty. Now, it is in the form of a bill. There is vast difference between treaties/conventions and bills. In conventions, state party or the government is responsible, but in case of bills, they are applicable to all citizens of Nepal once endorsed.

A safe way for the government is to present it as a treaty and endorse it with two-third votes. There are technical problems and there are big political implications as well. That is why parliamentary endorsement is not right. If we had not signed up for the MCC accord, I would have objected to its parliamentary endorsement. As we have already signed it, we can perhaps renegotiate. But I am not sure the US would be ready to drop parliamentary endorsement.

Would it be right to say that accepting the MCC is tantamount to accepting the IPS? There is also a kind of conspiracy thinking in some quarters that if we endorse the MCC accord, it will allow the Americans to station its army in Nepal.

I am saying that the IPS is a military strategy but the MCC is not. The IPS is part of the US foreign policy, so is the MCC. However, we have already entered the broader US foreign policy umbrella. As far as US military presence is concerned, we need a separate agreement for that. There is no military or security component in the MCC.

What do you make of the rumor that part of the reason Krishna Bahadur Mahara was removed from the speaker’s post was his resistance to the MCC accord?

I am not convinced Mahara stopped the MCC proposal. As finance minister, Mahara was involved in the MCC process. What I say is that there was bargaining inside the ruling party on the MCC issue. There was bargaining on who gets what with the passage of the MCC. Some are using it as a tool to boost their nationalistic credentials and strengthen their political position. On the other hand, they could also jeopardize the country’s relations with the US. Agni Sapkota has publicly said he is against the MCC. If he becomes the new speaker, it will be interesting to see how he behaves. If he passes the MCC bill, we should understand that his opposition was part of his bargaining tactic.

Let’s move to transitional justice. How do you see the appointment of new office-bearers in the two transitional justice bodies?

In April last year, the tenure of previous office bearers ended. The government then formed a committee led by former chief justice Om Prakash Mishra to recommend new names.  In this period, conflict victims and national and international stakeholders continued to argue that previous laws were insufficient, and they should be amended. They said appointments should be made only after the amendment in order to make the process more trustworthy. They were also saying conflict victims should be consulted and have a say in the overall process. Taking conflict victims into confidence was the right idea. But the committee took 11 months to make its recommendations. By the time it made the recommendations, even the tenure of the committee had expired.  

What would you say has been the major failing of our transitional justice process?

A major problem of our transitional justice process is absence of trust. The government takes human rights defenders and civil society members as spoilers of the process. In the eyes of conflict victims, both the civil society and the government work for their own interests. Therefore, until these three forces come together and an environment of trust is built, this process cannot move ahead in a consensual way, which is mandatory to reach to a logical conclusion. So the government should have worked on confidence building measures with all stakeholders. After that the role of commissions should have been defined and the role of conflict victims in the overall process identified. Similarly, there should have been work to segregate judicial and non-judicial components of transitional justice.

Government and opposition parties agreed to form the two commissions amid a climate of mistrust. They just concluded consultations in all provinces. For the same purpose, they had prepared a questionnaire. When victims entered the hall, they were given those questionnaires, which were to be filled within three hours, as if it was a university exam. There were loaded legal and constitutional terms in there. People from rural areas did not understand those terms.  The language of healing that the state was supposed to speak was missing. It is also a national healing process. We have a huge trust deficit and the current working style cannot bridge that gap. 

But haven’t the major parties vowed to amend the laws in line with the recommendation of the Supreme Court and international practices?

To amend the law, you need to build certain confidence. The problem is that the government is yet to recognize conflict victims as stakeholders in this process. For example, a family breadwinner is still declared as disappeared. All properties are under his name. He had taken out a loan on the basis of those properties. The bank has been publishing notices with the photo of the disappeared person, asking him to pay the money back. His wife wants to pay the loan by selling the property but the cabinet has not taken any decision to transfer the property in her name. So she is helpless.

As per existing laws, if a person goes missing for 12 years, family members can declare him or her dead and you can transfer property to the rightful heir.  But allowing this will be tantamount to allowing the issue of disappearance to be diverted. The government wants to reach that point. The government wants the duration of disappearance to cross 12 years so that the family would register the death certificate and claim the property. It will dilute the issue of disappearance. That is why there is still no law to criminalize enforced disappearance. There is still no law to criminalize torture because torture of conflict era cannot be proven as all evidences have gone. This is not a healing language. These are delaying tactics.

Don’t you think the two transitional justice commissions, now that they have office-bearers, will be able to resolve the remaining tasks of transitional justice?

The transitional justice process has three main components: judicial, political, and administrative. The judicial component can be addressed through commissions. The political and administrative components should be addressed by the government of the day. Truth seeking is a judicial component. For example, there are around 40,000 conflict-era cases in my calculation. Each and every one of them should be classified. You have to establish truth in every case. Some cases could be settled through reconciliation, which is a major part of the peace process. Serious human rights violations should be categorized as such and cases filed through the special court. There would be reparation in remaining cases.

Political component entails reconciliation. You can bring local government and provincial government on board in this process.  Additionally, we have a Supreme Court verdict that you can go for reconciliation only after the consent and informed participation of conflict victims. Next, the government has to take decision to transfer the property of disappeared people to their rightful owners, which helps keep the issue of disappearance alive. The government declared the security personnel killed in insurgency martyrs but not others who died back then. Reparation is another political and administrative part of the peace process. There are several issues which need to be addressed by the political leadership as the commissions on their own cannot resolve them.

So you don’t see much hope of timely justice for conflict victims.

Yes, I can say that. I wish for the success of those who got appointed to the two commissions. But do the people appointed to the commissions have any knowledge about transitional justice? Have they worked with conflict victims? Not even one of them, I am afraid. 

Agni Sapkota has been implicated in a war-time murder. Can he become the next speaker?

His murder case is pending at the Supreme Court. Kavre district court has issued an arrest warrant against him. If it is an ethical issue, he cannot be elected the speaker. The main qualification for speakership is having high moral ground.

What to boost your fitness while also having a load of fun? Why don’t you head out to the Ultimate Venue at Narayan Danda, Budhanilkantha? As the name suggests, the new adventure sports center is sure to offer you the ‘ultimate’ experience. The sprawling 90-ropani complex located 3.2 km north of the famous Budhanilkantha temple, is so close and yet feels a world apart from the pollution-filled and chaotic city it abuts.

Through Ultimate Venue, its two founders, Suresh Lama and Abhushan Karki, wanted to let people explore a new place, engage in challenging activities, and get over at least some of their fears. But where did they get the novel idea? “From nowhere in particular. We just decided that something like it could work here and plunged right into it,” says Lama.

The activities at Ultimate Venue are broken down into six components—camping, training, adventure training, agro farming, boot camp, and restaurant. The adventure sports include combat obstacle course, high ropes obstacle course, rock climbing and abseiling, hiking and trekking to amusing places like Baghdwar, Shivapuri Peak, Nagi Gumba, Sundarijal, Shivapuri Circuit, plus cycling.

The boot camp, likewise, is of three varieties, according to participants’ age, the number of days of engagement, and the fees. The 5-10 day fitness boot camp, usually for those above 14, ranges from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000; the 1-3 day Career Boot Camp for corporate clients ranges from Rs 2,500 to Rs 10,000; while the 1-7 day Teen Boot Camp for school and college students costs Rs 1,500 to Rs16,000. All these activities are supervised by experienced professional mountain-climbing trainer Sonam Tsering Sherpa, with a medical team as backup safety.

The main attraction of the place is an unobstructed 270-degree view of the Kathmandu valley and the beautiful views of sunrise and sunset it offers. People can visit any day and any time. The restaurant serves a mix of Indian, Chinese and authentic Nepali cuisines. Ultimate Venue also offers catering services, picnic spots, training in basic and advance rock climbing, lessons in route marking and rescue, as well as a crash course in farming practices.

“The present generation seldom gets a chance to be close to nature. All day they are playing with gadgets and modern technologies,” says Lama. “So, we thought, why not give them a chance to be close to nature while they also get to exercise a bit?” For instance, children are given rice and maze seedlings to plant in different named plots. They can later come and purchase the harvest. 

As the venue has proven to be a hit among locals and tourists alike, it is also expanding. The Ultimate Venue plans to build rooms for night stays, have live music, and run motivational classes on fitness and nature for all age groups.

One of the goals, say the founders, is to help with the promotion of Visit Nepal Year 2020, “by letting them know that there is such a unique place in Nepal as well.”

The prolonged impasse over the election of a new speaker of the federal lower house, and deputy speaker Shiva Maya Tumbahamphe’s refusal to step down, give one overarching message: the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) is still very much a divided house, nearly 20 months after the formal unity of the country’s two largest communist forces. Popular media has backed Tumbahamphe’s resolute stand against the ‘party patriarchy’ that wants her to go. But she might have resigned by now without the covert backing of both President Bidya Bhandari and PM KP Oli.

Party co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been vehement about the need to remove Tumbahamphe and start a new process for the election of new speaker and deputy speaker. His co-chair, Oli, wants to ensure the speaker’s post does not go to the former Maoist faction. The expelled ex-speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara was from the faction, and Dahal insists Agni Sapkota, another old Maoist stalwart, should replace Mahara. As the speaker and deputy speaker cannot come from the same party, by asking Tumbahamphe to hang on, Oli is putting pressure on Dahal and ex-Maoists to give up speakership in favor of Subhas Nembang, Oli’s own pick as the speaker.

There is also a geopolitical twist to the speakership saga. By preventing another Maoist from becoming the speaker, PM Oli wants to guarantee a smooth passage of the American MCC compact in the parliament. Former speaker Mahara had famously declined the tabling and voting on the MCC bill. The ex-Maoists suspect the MCC is a part of the American ‘military’ Indo-Pacific Strategy brought with the sole intent of countering China’s rise in Nepal. But as much as he is beholden to China, PM Oli, as government head, also wants to safeguard old relations with the US.  

This disturbed dynamics of a single party have left Nepal without a speaker for three months. The House has been repeatedly obstructed. In the past 30 years of democratic exercise, the country has had to pay dearly for past feuds among ruling parties, contributing to the collapse of successive governments and creating perpetual instability. The political parties seem to have learnt little. The ruling party should be mindful. The short-sightedness of its leaders could open up new fissures in the NCP and push the country into another vortex of instability and corrosive big-power rivalry.  

Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai speak to Khim Lal Devkota, a veteran analyst of federalism, about the problems in the implementation of federalism in Nepal 

How did you interpret the diktat of Nepal Communist Party secretariat on the naming and capital city-selection of Province 3?

There are two sides to it. You have to understand that this is a complicated issue. The first Constituent Assembly (CA) was dissolved due to differences among parties over names and number of federal provinces. At that time, the issue of provincial capitals was not much discussed. Even the second CA could not resolve this dispute. The new constitution gave provincial assemblies the right to decide names and capital cities of their provinces. But we committed a mistake by not mentioning in the constitution that those issues would be resolved within a year of formation of the provincial governments. There is also a tendency among provincial level leaders to seek the center’s guidance. This is our first experience with federalism. Provincial leaders may be hesitant to take independent decisions for the fear that top leaders may be unhappy.

So you see no problem with the NCP secretariat decision?

As far as the decision of the secretariat is concerned, it should not have been done so publicly. This did not give the right message. The party can instruct its cadres, but the constitution also enables federal, provincial and local governments to make executive, legislative and judiciary decisions. There will be question on the efficacy of federalism if a provincial assembly is unable to exercise its rights.

In the past, there were big protests when the government decided to extend service centers to rural areas, in what was a minor issue. So there is fear among the politicians that protests could erupt over the naming of provincial capitals. They opt for status quo and defer big changes fearing backlash. 

Are you happy with the process of selection of provincial capitals thus far?

Our development efforts till date are urban-centric, still concentrated in pockets like Pokhara, Nepalgunj, Dhangadi, Biratnagar, and Butwal. It would have been better if cities other than these would have been selected provincial capitals. With some established standards, choosing provincial capitals would not be difficult. Yes, it takes time and resources to build new infrastructure for provincial capitals. But choosing new cities as provincial capitals would have boosted decentralization.  

How do you rate the performance of the current federal government in its implementation of federalism?

There are various issues about the implementation of federalism. We have made good progress on fiscal management. The bureaucracy has done well even in the absence of political leadership. We allocated common and separate rights to all three types of governments, but it was the bureaucracy which conducted detailed homework. The issue of fiscal transfers and grants is clearly mentioned in the new constitution, paving the way for their immediate implementation. Some works like the finalization of the number of provincial ministers were completed even before the formation of this government. The government has also done a praiseworthy job on civil servant management and transfers.

There is an inter-province coordination committee led by the prime minister, with chief ministers as its members. In the initial days, the chief ministers panicked. The situation in the provinces was critical due to lack of staff, insufficient laws, and scarce resources. There was confusion about service delivery. The central government was also unable to help. But things have improved.

How do you evaluate the relation between the federal and provincial governments?

I have been evaluating the practices in other countries. In the Indian constitution, there is a provision of inter-state council. The president forms the committee on the recommendation of the central government. But in India the council was formed only in 1990, 40 years after the adoption of the Indian constitution. And even today the body does not meet often.

In our case, a similar body was formulated with the promulgation of the new constitution. It has already met thrice and has prepared a 29-point blueprint for the implementation of federalism. The blueprint has recommended forming a fiscal commission, completing staff adjustment process soon, and making the bureaucracy functional at provincial levels.

Similarly, Australia adopted federal structure in 1901. But a council to look after federalism-related issues was formed only in 1972. Compared to other countries, inter-province coordination and relationship is much better in Nepal. There is another committee in Nepal led by the federal finance minister to look after fiscal issues, which is represented by finance ministers from all seven provinces. It also has representation from local units. Regular meetings of this mechanism has helped avert possible disputes. There used to be heated debate in the initial meetings, but now there are amicable discussions.

Despite your optimism, many reckon the federal experiment in Nepal is failing.

This is baseless. Look at the progress at the local levels. For example, citizens of Karnali Province had to travel to Kathmandu even for minor services. Now, they can get it done through the local units. The number of service seekers is gradually increasing at local levels. We are at an initial stage. It takes time to see more visible results. Still, it is true that our politicians have a centralized mindset and sometimes they are reluctant to delegate rights.

But, then, visit the Ministry of Federal Affairs today, and you will hardly find anyone working there. There aren’t many service seekers as well. This is because its work has been delegated. Resources, manpower, and powers have already reached the local level. This means people now get services in their own villages. But we are yet to communicate this progress effectively.

If so, why are the provincial-level leaders so unhappy with the central-level leaders?

In the initial phase, the provinces were unhappy with the federal government. Now, the situation has changed. But, then, local units are also not happy with the provincial governments. Instead of complaining, each of them has to perform their duties. The provincial government should first exercise the rights granted by the constitution. Now, it’s time for the provincial governments to deliver as they have the manpower, resources, and necessary laws. There is no room for blame-game; you have to show the result. Certainly, there are complaints on formation of police force and laws related to security agencies. For instance, the laws for provincial Public Service Commission have already been passed, but the provinces have not made any progress. And why are the provinces failing to take decisions on their names and capitals?

Nepal’s national economy has seen an uptick of late. Would you attribute this to federalism?

No economy in the world is doing very well right now. But our economy is making process. However, we cannot say this is because of federalism. It could rather be attributed to having a stable government. In the past we suffered from frequent government changes. Foreign investors are also willing to invest because of stability.

How is the relationship among the three tiers of government?

Article 232 of the constitution says that the relationship among the three tiers of government will be based on cooperation, coordination, and co-existence. Each has its own exclusive as well as shared rights. As per the constitution, all three tiers can exercise state power. Relations in Nepal are still hierarchical, especially when it comes to fiscal issues, grants, auditing, and accounting system. The federal government can instruct provincial and local governments on two issues: matters related to inter-province relations, and on national sovereignty and territorial integrity. If they do not abide by these instructions, the federal government can dissolve provincial government and parliament. Similarly, the federal government can instruct local units on any issue.

The relationship among the three tiers is always guided by federal laws. To handle disputes over federalism and constitution, there is a constitutional bench in the Supreme Court. The bench has already taken action on Sagarnath community forests and other issues. We have formed some laws and are in the process of forming others. There are two types of relations: formal and informal. It takes time to build the kind of informal relations that results in widespread cooperation. In our case, I would say that the three-way relations are on the right trajectory.

What could be the major challenges for the implementation of federalism in the next five years?

We have given many functions and responsibilities to local governments, and they don’t have much experience. More than that, disputes could arise between provinces. There could also be disputes between provinces and local governments or between local governments. Vertical disputes, that is, between the federal and provincial governments, could be less common. So I recommend increased engagement among provinces and local units.

There are regional council structures in India where states settle inter-state issues. We can do something similar in Nepal. For example, we can form a council for Karnali and Sudur Paschim provinces. In the council, they can share best practices. In the next five years, we will face many regional issues, and so we have to form regional level councils. They will handle disputes like the ones over utilization and allocation of natural resources.

Some foresee the disputes between the three tiers of government increasing, imperiling the whole federal project.

The conflict will not reach that level. But for that the institutional mechanisms mandated to maintain inter-state relations should be enhanced; they should meet and interact regularly. Now we have started linking even minor disputes between two or more villages, which have always been seen in Nepal, with federalism. Likewise, a minor tax dispute or the behavior of an individual local representative is seen as an example of federalism’s failure. There are certainly some anti-federal elements around. In this condition, it is vital that we also talk up the many achievements of federalism.

A. Professional football player.

Q. One dead musician you’d like to bring back if you had the power?

A. Jimi Hendrix.

Q. Something people misjudge you about?

A. Playing the bad guy in the movies

Q. If you were stranded on an island with only one record to take with you, which one would that be?

A. “Tea for the Tillerman” by Cat Stevens

Q. Favorite Nepali artist?

A. My friend, Mukti (Shakya) dai

Q. Dal Bhat or Continental?

A. Dal Bhat

Q. What sport/s do you follow the most?

A. Football, of course

Q. A female singer you’d love to sing a duet with?

A. Janis Joplin

Q. What would youdance to? EDM or hip-hop?

A. Hip-hop

Q. Favorite guitar brand? You can’t say Fender!

A. Godin

Q. Something that's been in your wish-list for long?

A. Film School

There is continuation on some issues, while we have made adjust­ments on some other issues. Some fundamentals of foreign policy remain unchanged. For example, given our geopolitical situation, we have to maintain strict neutrality, as advised by our founding father. Non-alignment, UN charter and Panchsheel are issues on which there is continuation. Another important continuation is in not allowing our soil to be used against any country.

But foreign policy priorities also keep changing as per our domes­tic needs. In the past, there was political conflict, so achieving peace and making it sustainable was our priority. We told the international community that our key priority was achieving peace and so they should support us.

After the completion of the major parts of the peace process, consti­tution drafting was our priority. After the promulgation of the new constitution, we formed a strong and stable government. Now, after having institutionalized and con­solidated political gains, we are on the path of economic prosperity. Prosperity is a key government as well as foreign policy agenda. The changes in domestic policy should be clearly reflected in the country’s foreign policy. In this context, we have to know what is happening at the regional and global levels. We have to catch up with the changes in our immediate neighborhood too. Foreign policy is a dynamic field and we have to continuously make adjustments. But at the heart of it, foreign policy is always an extended form of domestic policy.

Diversification seems to be the central theme of the government foreign policy. What does this entail? For one, closer ties with China appear to be the priority.

We are always guided by our national requirements and needs. In this period, two issues drove us towards diversification. First, we were too dependent on outside power, and suffered for it. So we sought to diversify our options. We signed the Transit and Transport Agreement with China in 2016. It was a major breakthrough because before that, third-country trade was possible only via India. But only policy-level decision was not suffi­cient; there was a need to make it workable. We signed subsequent agreements, including protocol, to make the agreements feasible.

Another important aspect is building necessary infrastructure to ensure our access to transit facilities. This could have been difficult 50 years ago but today’s Tibet is largely developed and much changed. Now, there are better road, rail and other infrastructures in Tibet and if we can benefit from them, why not? Inter-independency is a reality in today’s globalizing world. We have to look through the lens of compar­ative advantages. But first you have to be better connected.

What kind of connectivity are you talking about?

We want to be connected through railways, waterways, roads, and other means. In the past, due to the strict electricity guidelines imposed by India, there was confu­sion about our possible electricity markets. We successfully eased the restrictions and now there is a favor­able environment for electricity trading. When it comes to energy cooperation, we have made good progress with Bangladesh. Nepal, Bangladesh and India are close to trilateral electricity coopera­tion. We should always look at the broader context. If there are more options, we can bring more investment and be in a better place in marketing our products.

Nepal government seems intent on building the inter-country railway while China seems to be emphasiz­ing the roads. Is this the right reading?

I humbly request you to follow the official documents. When it comes to railway, the agreement we forged stands. Now we are in the phase of preparing the Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the railway. Apparently China was not too keen on it but then during Chinese President Xi Jin­ping’s Nepal visit, the two coun­tries actually signed an agree­ment on the DPR, and the two sides are now working on pre­paring the DPR. The proposed Raxaul-Kathmandu railway line has also gotten momentum. We need both roads and railway. It is not a question of choosing one over the other. We all know that it takes comparatively less time to build roads than to build railway. We also know that bringing a railway is a difficult task given our difficult geographical terrains. The roads will be completed soon but it does not mean that the railway will not progress for the same reason. Both the projects will move ahead simultaneously.

Another burning issue right now is the Millennium Chal­lenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal compact. Why so much confusion over it?

The process of MCC began in 2011 and we signed it in 2017 September. The incumbent gov­ernment is fully committed to all points of the MCC agreement. This is about continuity of the agreement signed with a coun­try. One month ago, I was in Washington DC and conversed with high-level government offi­cials there, including President Trump’s advisor who follows this region. They categorically told me that Indo-Pacific is not a formal organization. According to them, the basic concept is to name this region Indo-Pacific, and all the activities they carry out in this region fall under this broader concept. But it does not mean that the MCC is under Indo-Pa­cific because there are MCC projects beyond the Indo-Pacific region as well, including in Africa.

We have to be accountable to the document we have signed. We are not responsible for anything beyond that. The US has not come up with any proposal to change the agree­ment we signed in 2017. In a dem­ocratic and open society like ours, issues are raised from different per­spectives and we have to take that in a normal way. Some issues are raised with little knowledge, some with an intent of knowing more, and some on the basis of curiosity. The Nepal Communist Party is a respon­sible party running the government, and Prime Minister Oli has time and again said that whatever agreement we have signed will be honored.

Are you suggesting that it really does not matter if the MCC falls under the Indo-Pacific Strategy?

There is no clarity on the meaning of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. What is Indo-Pacific? What do they want from it? They tell us it is a concept according to which the Indo-Pacific region should be open, free, and where democracies are promoted. It has not taken any organization­al shape. If they broadly explain that whatever they do in this region bilaterally is under Indo-Pacific, what can we do until and unless they come up with an organizational shape? Again, we are responsible for the agreement and nothing else. When we signed the MCC compact in 2017, there was no mention of Indo-Pacific. It is a five-year project and Nepal chose construction of transmission lines and upgrade of roads under the MCC grants.

Lastly, you were a member of Nepali half of the Eminent Per­sons’ Group (EPG). What do you make of India’s delay in receiving the report?

I do not want to comment much on it because right now I am not in the EPG. What I will say is that the EPG process was initiated at the highest political level. A consensual report has been prepared covering all areas of bilateral relations. We agreed to submit the final report to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi first. What we didn’t expect was the kind of indifference we now see from India. Still, I am hopeful that the EPG report will be received as soon as possible.