Submit your Article

The government performance is average. In Nepal’s modern polit­ical history, after the big majority government of BP Koirala in 1959, it was only the second time that a government was formed with such a conducive environment. The cur­rent government has a strong man­date with almost two-third support in parliament and it has popular support as well. There is virtually no opposition as well. In this situa­tion, people expect more from the government.

For instance, the Oli government has come up with a new education policy but it is doubtful any edu­cation expert has gone through it. The policy is a mess but no one is challenging the policy, neither from inside the party nor from outside it. Previous governments had no such luxury.

The Oli government is undertak­ing only day-to-day tasks. But such things could also have been done by any of the previous, and far-weaker, governments. It is a tragedy that there is no substantial difference between previous short-lived gov­ernments and current stable one.

Why has such a strong govern­ment performed so poorly?

There is a lack of homework, and our state machinery is also weak. When Oli was electioneering, I had asked whether the big promises he was making could be honored by our weak state machinery. Why are our development projects so slow? There could be political and other vested interests and there also could be some financial issues. But the main thing is that we do not have the required manpower to run them. We have insufficient project management skills. We have the manpower who have studied management but project manage­ment is a different area altogether. There are other countries too that are both corrupt and that witness a high level of political instability, and yet they are making good prog­ress on development projects. So we cannot entirely blame corrup­tion and political instability for our project delays.

Development projects have cer­tain characteristics. To achieve tar­gets, people in leadership should enjoy a level of autonomy. We do not have the concept of autono­my here. Whoever becomes proj­ect head has to constantly appease their political masters. Look at the current Millennium Challenge Cor­poration compact debate. If you look at the MCC compact, there has been an attempt to assure the management’s autonomy in order to ensure the project’s timely comple­tion. In our projects we do not have such autonomy, and hence they often fail.

The government, however, claims it is well on its way to achieving its goal of national prosperity?

The major slogan of the Oli gov­ernment is ‘Prosperous Nepal, Hap­py Nepali’. But the key question is: what are the indices to measure prosperity? What does the govern­ment want to achieve in education, health, and other sectors? The fig­ures included in budget speech are abstract. After the elections, the Nepal Communist Party had a month in which to internally pre­pare to make their electoral promise a reality. Even though the election results where yet to be declared, KP Sharma Oli was sure to be prime minister and he was in a position to lay out his government’s vision. Yet there was no such homework. This suggests the political leader­ship of Nepal is of average quality. And this is true right across par­ty lines. It would not make a huge difference if Madhav Kumar Nepal or Prachanda took over PM’s chair tomorrow. They have already been tried and tested and found wanting. Our leadership has a weak vision and even weaker capacity to come up with policy actions to realize this vision. We cannot expect more than average work from an average leadership.

What is your take on the media’s rather harsh response to Oli gov­ernment’s functioning?

During the 2017 elections, there was massive opinion in media in favor of the left alliance. But the media got progressively critical even before the federal government had completed a year. See the news reports and analysis covering the government’s two years, they are overwhelmingly critical. This clearly shows that there are weaknesses in government functioning. The government has also failed to take the public into confidence. This is dangerous. The government has become too defensive. It should convince people with its deeds, not its rhetoric.

But there must also be some posi­tive things that have happened in the past two years.

Two years are not insufficient to evaluate a government but they are also not sufficient. We have to wait for some time yet before we reach a conclusion. I feel happy in the sense that we promulgated a new constitu­tion by overcoming big challenges. The constitutional and federal pro­cesses have moved forward and the credit goes to polit­ical parties. There may be some prob­lems as federal­ism is not some­thing that can be implemented overnight. So, yes, you cannot also say that nothing good has happened in these two years.

Do you also think the conflict between the two NCP co-chair­men Oli and Prachanda hampers government functioning?

After the unification, Prachan­da has been giving voice to some alternate views. Otherwise, there were no alternate voices to Oli in the former CPN-UML. These days, Prachanda is close to PM Oli. Pra­chanda is saying Oli will be at the government’s helm for five years. There are some internal conflicts but it is not at the level of paralyz­ing the government. For the first time, internal conflicts came to the surface during the selection of the speaker of the House of Represen­tatives. The issue of MCC is yet to be settled. Otherwise, there is no internal ideological challenge to the government. For example, Ghan­shyam Bhusal, a possible ideological challenger, has now become part of the government. There is a sense of insecurity on Prachanda’s part and he is impatient about his turn in power but he is not challenging the government yet.

How has Nepal’s international relations changed in the past two years?

We have seen a visible change in our geopolitics. The relation with China has moved ahead apace, more swiftly than we anticipated. At the same time, the level of depen­dence on China has also increased. We say the rail will come only if China builds it with its own money. The Chinese side has not assured us about the rail and has proposed better roads as an alternative. But we keep emphasizing railway. With China, we made a leap forward. But do we have enough capacity and preparations to sustain this new level of engagement? If we do not, it could be counterproductive. We are in a sensitive geopolitical location and it is not easy to take both our neighbors into confidence. We need their support but at the same time our options should remain open.

What about Nepal’s relations with other powers?

With other powers, our relations have shrunk. The activities of the European Union are slowing down. We are in increasing disputes with the United States. For instance, there was no need to link the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the MCC and blow up the issue.There is no possibility of our joining an American secu­rity alliance as non-alignment is a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Internationally, Nepal is increasing­ly thought of as close to China and as a communist country. There are five declared communist countries: Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and China. Some now think of Nepal as the sixth one. The difference is that unlike in those countries, in Nepal the communist party has come through a democratic process.

In the past, international actors in Nepal were not in conflict. Nepal was a pleasant place for all pow­ers but the situation is gradually changing. The Europeans are not happy though they have not said so directly. It also seems that we are trying to create a distance with the US, creating unnecessary disputes.

How do you evaluate the role of the opposition parties, particu­larly the Nepali Congress?

There is a huge majority govern­ment and the opposition does not get much space in such a setup. Despite this, the opposition is failing to carry out its expected role. Con­sider the prime minister’s recent address to the parliament. After the PM’s address, the leader of the main opposition should have spoken. Instead, some opposition lawmak­ers only asked innocuous questions over his address. In a parliamentary system, the opposition is an alter­native to the government in two ways. First, in its role in the current parliament and then as the potential ruling party after the next election. The opposition should come up with alternative policies, programs and ideas, not just with facetious questions.

The government has made sever­al attempts to curtail freedom of expression but with only limited success. Is it particularly difficult to curtail free speech in Nepal?

Despite the many criticisms of Nepali democracy, over the past 10-12 years it has succeeded in cre­ating a vibrant civil society. People immediately take to the streets if the government tries to shrink civic space. There are also instances of street protests forcing the govern­ment to withdraw some of its plans. The people who have come out on the streets are not committed NCP voters. This is the biggest plus point of our democracy.

Separately, the government works should be analyzed from two angles. In line with the policy commitments it made in election time, the ruling party is free to bring policies and programs. The government can introduce new policies in educa­tion, health and other sectors, and which are liable to change in the coming days. The opposition can only protest but it cannot block those measures. But the key ques­tion is whether the Guthi Bill, the Information Technology bill, and the National Human Rights Com­mission bill are such policy com­mitments. They are not. They are constitutional commitments rather.

For example, the issue of human rights is related not just to a party or the government; it is a constitu­tional commitment. Press freedom is also a constitutional commitment. The government should realize that there is a difference between elec­toral commitments and constitu­tional commitments. The parlia­mentary majority-minority is not applicable to constitutional com­mitments and electoral mandate should not affect them

Q. Who is your favorite superhero, and why?
A. Has to be my mother who gave birth to me in her 40s. She nurtured and raised nine children in the face of many obstacles.
Q. Who do you admire the most?
A. Again, my mother.
Q. What is your favorite song?
A. Mostly depends on the mood but “Perfect” by Ed Sheeran and “In Love with Another Man” by Jazmine Sullivan are on my current playlist.
Q. Your greatest achievement?
A. The dazzling crown of “Miss Mongol”
Q. On a scale of 1-10, how good are you at keeping secrets?
A. One
Q. Favorite junk food?
A. Sekuwa
Q. If you could be a member of any reality show, which one would it be?
A. America’s Got Talent
Q. What is your favorite type of workout?
A. Trekking/Hiking
Q. Would you go to a movie alone?
A. Oh yes, in fact I’ve done it many times. The last one was “Saili.”

Q. What one thing would you definitely put in your bucket list?

A. Travel the world.

Q. If you could trade lives with someone for a day, who would it be and why?

A. Oprah Winfrey! I want to know how is it to live as the “Queen of All Media” and be the most influential woman in the world.

Q. If you could get anything, what would you get?

A. A store for my brand “Mero Nana Nepal ”.

Q. When I dance, I look like…?

A. The happiest person on earth.

Q. What’s the coolest thing you remember learning, and how did you learn it?

A. To be able to run and dance on heels! All the influences came from Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies”.

Q. What’s the first trend you remember loving?

A. Comeback of high-waisted jeans! Such a game changer.

Q. What job would you least want to have?

A. Anything 9-5.

Q. If you could only watch one movie for the rest of your life, what would it be, and why?

A. Beauty and the Beast. Because this movie teaches us that it’s okay to be different and that we should love someone for who they are, not for their appearance.

Q. If you had three songs to represent your life and personality, which ones would you select?

A. Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies”, Justin Bieber’s “Life is Worth Living”, and Wiz Khalifa’s “Work Hard Play Hard”.

 Finance Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada’s announcement on February 12 that the government was slashing the annual budget by nearly 10 percent was only the final confirmation of the headwinds facing the Nepali economy. The plan of bringing in two million foreign tourists during Visit Nepal 2020 has been badly hit by the coronavirus scare. Chinese folks, who were expected to make a big contribution to Visit Nepal, are now staying put in their own country. Nepali banks that had invested heavily in hospitality in anticipation of the Visit Nepal tourist bump now fear their loans could sour. Inflation is already a worrying 6.4 percent, and given the turbulent state of the Indian economy, could further rise. Foreign aid and grants are down.

But perhaps the biggest problem is, once again, the government’s failure to spend. In the first six months of this fiscal, just 15.4 percent of the allotted capital budget was spent. Likewise, only 29.9 percent of the budget under ‘financing’ head was put to good use. The Oli government likes to talk up its focus on ‘big ticket’ infrastructure and yet of the Rs 10 billion allocated for the national pride projects, only 19 percent was spent. Yet while announcing the revised budget on February 12, Khatiwada sounded an optimistic note. He said the government still expects to spend over 80 percent of the capital budget, over 90 percent of the financing budget, as well as meet its growth (8.5 percent) and inflation (under 6 percent) targets.

Khatiwada pointed to the narrowing trade deficit and the healthy performance of the agriculture sector as reasons for optimism. He also cited higher spending on roads, hotels and hydropower as further cause for cheer. Yet Khatiwada surely knows Nepal’s economic fundamentals are still astray, starting with its perennial inability to spend. Despite PM Oli’s commitment to root them out, cartels and syndicates still sit atop all important sectors. The government has looked on helplessly as chicken farmers artificially increased poultry prices by killing off chicks and burying unhatched eggs. Nor has the government been able to crack down on dilly-dallying contractors.

The Nepali economy seems to be on autopilot. The government, and its cerebral finance minister, it appears, could not do even the bare minimum to gin up the economy, in what is turning out to be among the signature failures of the mighty two-thirds communist government. or SAARC as two regional bodies have dif

 Mashfee Binte Shams, the Bangladeshi Ambassa­dor to Nepal, is going back to her country after six years in Nepal. As her tenure draws to a close, Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talk to her about her impres­sions of Nepal, SAARC, geopol­itics and bilateral trade.

 You have been in Nepal for a long time. What has struck you the most about the country?

I have been here during a very important time in Nepal’s political history. You adopted a new consti­tution, and you completed a long political transition from monarchy to democracy. Experiencing this transformation in Nepal has been interesting as an outsider. My sec­ond takeaway from Nepal is that it is a really resilient country. There was the earthquake and there were so many other upheavals but people are still so optimistic and hard-working.

Could you point to some notable commonalities between Nepal and Bangladesh?

We have a shared vision of pros­perity. Over the past decade, Ban­gladesh has made great strides in development. We are today the 39th largest economy in the world, with a per capita income of almost $2,000. We completed in 2018 the required process of graduating from the ranks of the Least Developing Coun­tries (LDC). Our social-economic transformation has been huge. But we can also identify with Nepal, whose social-economic challenges such as women empowerment, liter­acy, health care, and even drinking water are common with Bangladesh. Another new common challenge is climate change or global warming. Both countries are vulnerable to the effects of climate change even though neither is a contributor to global warming or greenhouse gas emissions.

What has been the progress on the much-touted power trading between Nepal and Bangladesh?

The power trade between Nepal and Bangladesh should have start­ed much earlier. You have such a huge potential and we have a huge demand. Even today, Bangladesh produces over 21,000 MW as it is a fast-growing economy with over 8 percent annual growth. So we need a huge amount of electricity, around 34,000 MW by 2030. Right now, we produce energy from coal, thermal, gas and other sources. We want to shift from that to more renewal sources. Hydropower is the greenest and most renewal source and we are thus looking to import power from Nepal. In 2018, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Under­standing on power trade. Under that MoU some mechanisms for regular consultations are in place. Hopefully, something can be worked out soon.

You say the power trading should have happened much earlier. What was the hindrance?

You were unprepared in many ways. Some of your power projects were just coming online. You had a power deficit. Even now, Nepal is importing power from India to meet your domestic demand. In the past, you were not in a position to export power to any country, including Bangladesh. From this monsoon, Nepal is going power surplus, which creates an ideal environment for us to import power from Nepal.

Regarding power cooperation, we need the consent of India via which the transmission lines will run. Has India been cooperative?

There has been a satisfactory pro­cess on this. All impediments have been removed. I think there are no legal barriers to take electricity from Nepal to Bangladesh via India. Of course, the details will have to be worked out. Similarly, on the GMR project of Upper Karnali, Bangla­desh is in the final stage of purchas­ing power. That will build a founda­tion for us to import electricity from other projects in Nepal.

You mean there are no obstacles from the Indian side?

You must have seen all legal acts and regulations, and the problem­atic ones have been amended. Yes, I think all obstacles have now been removed.

Less than 30 km separates Nepal and Bangladesh. Yet the volume of trade between them has been dismal.

I have talked to everyone here. The chambers of commerce, and all the business people, right down to the grassroots. The problem is a lack of interest on both sides. Busi­nesspeople in Bangladesh think of Nepal as a very small and hence an unprofitable export market. They think Nepali markets are dominated by Indian exports. So our business people were not interested. In the case of Nepali people, they think Bangladesh is a poor, starving, pov­erty-ridden country which does not have purchasing power. Many don’t realize that Bangladesh today is not what it was 40 years ago. As I mentioned earlier, our purchasing capacity is more than $2,000. We have a 50-million-strong middle class, which is huge. Only now have some Nepali businessmen started exporting to Bangladesh and they complain about tariff and non-tariff barriers, which I think is encouraging. This means they want to export. Given this, we can work together to remove some of the difficulties.

The President of Bangladesh visited Nepal last year. What role do these high-level visits have on enhancing bilateral ties?

Definitively, high-level political exchanges help create goodwill. We keep saying we are good friends and extremely close neighbors. Actually, after India and China, Bangladesh is your closet neighbor. If we do not have exchanges between the political leaders, we lose contact and we become bound by rules and regulations. Only when we have direct discussions can we talk to each other about our problems and issues, and resolve actual problems and clear misperceptions. You have a perception in Nepal Bangladesh is blocking Nepali products, where­as I want to categorically tell you that there is no blockage of Nepali exports as such. Whatever rules and regulations Nepali exporters have to follow also applies to other exporters to Bangladesh. As we are importing from many other coun­tries, why wouldn’t we import from a close friend?

Where does Bangladesh stand on SAARC?

For regional cooperation to work, countries should be ready to sacri­fice or be flexible in areas of possi­ble cooperation. For instance, let’s forget SAARC. We decided that Ban­gladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal would get together and sign a motor vehicle agreement. That made sense as these four countries are physi­cally close and have similar prob­lems. It makes sense to cooperate to ensure more economic integration. But where is the BBIN motor vehicle agreement today? It was signed in June 2015 by four countries, but Bhutan could not ratify it. Even the three signatory countries Nepal, India, and Bangladesh should have moved ahead but we have been unable to do so. The eight-country SAARC is a lot more diverse. Without some flexibility from participating countries, no regional organization can function well.

Does Bangladesh support India’s desire to push BIMSTEC instead of SAARC?

The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Eco­nomic Cooperation is not a replace­ment for SAARC as two regional bodies have different objectives and areas of operations. SAARC brings together the countries of the region that were closely integrated before the British came here and created artificial divisions. Before the Brit­ish arrived, the region had many principalities and kingdoms but we were integrated and there was a lot of internal trade. So SAARC tries to revive that pre-British integration.

Whereas BIMSTEC is about pro­moting trade between the two eco­nomic regions of ASEAN and South Asia. So one cannot replace the other. Bangladesh always backs any sort of regional, sub-regional, or multilateral cooperation. It is our core foreign policy objective to have greater regional integration and promote cooperation as we believe no country can develop in isolation. The region must develop together. A situation of one country going very fast, another country lagging behind would lead to regional insta­bility. Regional cooperation is hence the core foreign policy objective of Bangladesh. It could be achieved through SAARC, BBIN, BIMSTEC or any other organization.

Both Bangladesh and Nepal seem to be having a tough time balanc­ing the interests of big powers like India, China, and the US. Can you tell us a bit about the Bangla­deshi experience?

Bangladesh is very open and we do not see it as balancing one against another. We are open to cooperation with everybody. In 2016, we signed an agreement with China to bring in over $17 billion in investment. India is also a very important trading and investment partner for us. Likewise, the US is our biggest destination for readymade garments. Cooperation with one country does not mean you cannot cooperate with the other. When Bangladesh was born, we had nothing, everything was destroyed. We had no industries, no agricul­ture, no infrastructure. Becoming the 39th largest economy in the world was a massive challenge. By 2030, we will be the 26th largest economy. So we do not want to pick and choose.

Any advice for Nepal on how to maintain a successful balance?

I am not here to offer advice to Nepal. Talking about Bangladesh, we now have self-confidence which allows us to make these decisions more pragmatically. We are not influ­enced by what you call big powers. I think national confidence is very important. For example, in 2013 we planned a bridge across Padma River, in what would be one of the largest infrastructure projects in Bangladesh. The bridge would con­nect Dhaka to South-Eastern Bangla­desh, a detached and deprived area. We went to the World Bank and the Islamic Development Bank and JICA for funding. The World Bank decid­ed not to fund the $3 billion project. Finally, our prime minister said we do not want your money. She said we will do it with our own funds. Now Bangladesh is building this huge infrastructure on its own. That has given confidence. Now, there is national confidence that we can do big things on our own.

As you pointed out, Bangladesh is now growing at above 8 per­cent annually. Any secret sauce Nepal could also use?

I strongly believe that we all have our own paths to follow. What worked in Bangladesh may not work in Nepal. There is no way to say that we followed this and you should be doing that. In Ban­gladesh, we have highly motivat­ed entrepreneurs, which helped with the establishment of a robust readymade garment sector. The government brought supportive rules and laws. The government also introduced special incentives in agriculture, as Bangladesh was food-deficient for a long time. Now we are self-sufficient in food. In fact, we are also exporting rice and the government is even giving subsidies in rice export

A. Ciney Gurung. I love the versatility in her voice.

Q. Would you date a fan?

 A. Yes I would. But I wouldn’t call it a date actually. Just a short coffee talk. After all, it’s because of them that we are where we are today.

Q. Your perfect Valentine getaway?

A. Valentine’s Day doesn’t have any special meaning in my life. I would instead prefer a family vacation to Dubai.

Q. If you weren't famous, what would you be up to right now?

A. If I weren’t famous, I would probably be in Japan. I’d gotten a student visa for there in 2004 but didn’t go. I rather pursued music here.

Q. What celebrity would you rate as a perfect 10?

A. Any celebrity dedicated to their profession is a perfect 10 for me.

Q. Do you sing in the shower?

A. Definitely. I am a bathroom singer.

Q. What is one item you could not live without?

A. My motorbike.

Q. Four things you would change about yourself?

A. Waking up late, not being punctual, trusting people easily, and not being conscious about my health.

Q. When was the last time you were late for something?

     A. I missed an international flight a few weeks back as I was late.

 The Monkey Temple restaurant over­looks the real Monkey Temple (the Swoyambhunath Monastery), and half of Kathmandu, from its property at Chakdol height, Swoyambhu, and the view is mes­merizing, especially in the evenings. Getting there can be a little tricky and we recommend using Google Maps to find the restaurant but when you do get there, the search will be worth it. Young­sters throng the cozy multi-cuisine restau­rant on weekdays as well as weekends to enjoy the servings of moderately priced food and the great view that the restau­rant offers. If you’re lucky, you’ll also have some good photos clicked by their in-house photographer for their social media pages.

PS: We know for sure that the Monkey Temple is a frequent hangout for one Nepali television actress. Who knows? You might just bump into her for a photo op.  

 Amid the raging debate on $500 million grant to Nepal under the Millen­nium Challenge Corporation compact, Kamal Dev Bhatta­rai talked to Nepali Congress leader Gagan Kumar Thapa to solicit his views on the debate.

 First, how do you evaluate the federal government’s overall for­eign policy conduct?

The government is confused on foreign policy. Learning from expe­rience and our geopolitics, Nepal should first manage its two giant neighbors. At the same time, we should enhance our relations with multiple powers. We should tread in a cautious and balanced way. Most important, we should not exploit our special geostrategic situation for immediate political gains. In this climate of political stability, there should be delivery in a new way. The dividend of government stability should be reflected in international relations. Our relations with other countries in the past two years have gone from bad to worse. Intra-party rifts and polarizations are unexpect­edly thriving over foreign policy. Irrespective of who is in the govern­ment, all important actors in Nepal should have a clear direction. But we are sliding back and different political factions of the same party have different stands. The issues have been made more and more complicated.

How do you see the current MCC compact debate?

When we talk about foreign loan and grants and relations between two countries, sometimes we are influenced by specific events and emotions prevail. Similarly, we don’t have sufficient debates and discus­sions on bilateral relations.

We have become victims of these two tendencies. The MCC debate started on an emotional footing and we have never seriously discussed it. But there is positive side to it as the parliament could otherwise have endorsed it in a day, without substantial deliberations. The par­liament has passed many bills of public importance without substan­tial debate.

The current debate should be taken in a positive way as it is part of our broader discussion on what should be our approach to foreign loans and grants. When the MCC enters the parlia­ment, we should shun emotional debates. There should rather be informed discussions in parlia­ment. It is also an opportunity for the parliament.

How do you evaluate this gov­ernment’s handling of the MCC compact?

The issue is being presented in the public in different ways. One section says the MCC is everything and we should not miss it. Another sensa­tional definition is that if we accept the MCC, American Army and mis­siles will come to Nepal. This result­ed from the government’s inability to handle it properly. Of course, even if you accept a penny from outsiders, their interests will invari­ably be involved. In international relations, nothing is mutually exclu­sive. We have to tell people why the MCC’s acceptance serves our interests. The government should start an informed debate on it. But that is not how the government is going about it. Instead of address­ing the raised issues, the govern­ment gave an impression that it is in hurry to pass the compact, which does not help.

In the initial stage, the PM pro­moted a conspiracy theory on the MCC. The head of government should have made it clear why the government accepts this grant and that such agreements could also be signed with other countries. Now the government is preparing to bring a house resolution stat­ing that Nepal would not join any military alliance. Government ministers said the MCC was signed during the tenure of the previous government so it was the responsi­bility of the previous government, which was an irresponsible act. There was lack of maturity. The lack of debate culture in Nepal also created problems.

Even American officials say the MCC is a part of their Indo-Pacif­ic Strategy. How do you see it?

There has been a lot of discus­sion on the MCC but not on key defense issues. There are joint exercises between Nepal and US armies. The US is providing a lot of assistance to Nepal Army. Similarly, China is also assisting the army. They are giving military assistance directly to the army. There has been no debate on whether the army should accept such assistance. Similarly, there are ques­tions over whether the army should accept mon­ey directly from those countries. We can discuss the merits and demerits of the MCC but it should not be projected as a big issue of national sovereignty and security.

How should the national parlia­ment handle the MCC compact?

In the parliament, we get just three minutes to speak. But even before the discussions in the par­liament, party leaders who have already served as government min­isters are continuously speaking on it. Some parties issued press state­ments on the MCC. All this called for a serious study of the MCC concept. Parties are allowed to take positions but they should be mindful because such positions could have long-term ramifications.

What do you make of the conspir­acy theory that the MCC compact will allow the US army to come to Nepal?

There is conspiracy and disinfor­mation over the MCC. Such conspir­acy began to emerge after Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli linked the MCC with former speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara. PM Oli’s comment that Mahara did not help with the passage of the MCC through the parliament helped build a conspir­acy theory.

What do you make of the Amer­ican condition of parliamentary approval of the MCC compact?

There are serious questions around us. Let’s take an example. In 2014, then CPN-UML leader Bhim Rawal and I asked in parliament why the power trade agreement with India had bypassed the legislature. We then brought up the power trade agreement in a parliamentary com­mittee and the committee then gave appropriate instructions. The parlia­ment should accept the responsibili­ty for these important issues. In the case of the MCC compact, I think it entered the parliament in line with our own Treaty Act.

What will be your role as an MP when the MCC compact enters the parliament?

We should trust the parliament. There has been no discussion on it in the parliament. The issues raised by citizens will be definite­ly discussed there. If it is against national interest, we won’t accept it. If necessary, the MCC compact could be forwarded to parliamen­tary committees for discussions on technical issues. If these discussions are insufficient, we can form other expert committees. Again, the ruling party should handle the MCC in a mature way.

What kind of foreign help should Nepal ideally accept?

Nepal has a big resource-gap. We want to build big hydro projects, transmission lines, highways and fast-tracks on our own but then we don’t have enough resources. So we have to take out loans and accept grants. As far as possible, we should try to diversify the sources of our loans and grants. This is also a right of the Least Developing Countries. In our climate dialogue, we say that grant is our right. In European and Western countries, there was criti­cism that they were supporting us only in hardware and not in soft­ware. They have to support roads, transmission lines and other sectors too. This is what we are telling them. Perhaps the MCC compact is a reflec­tion of that