Submit your Article

The world around Nepal has been turning at a dizzying pace even as we remain in turmoil as ever. Gone is the unipolar world that was under the command of the sole superpower after the fragmentation of the Soviet Union in the early 90’s. 

Looking back, Nepal has always sought to reach out to a wider world. It established its first diplomatic relations (with the United Kingdom) in 1816 and now has formal ties with around 180 countries. It joined the United Nations on 14 Dec 1955 and has also been part of the Non-Aligned Movement founded in 1961. 

It is a founding member of the grouping called South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) that dates back to 8 Dec 1985 with its secretariat set up in Kathmandu on 17 Jan 1987. 

In February 2004, Nepal became a member of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation that was established on 6 June 1997.

Nepal, though, took quite a long time in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) established on 15 June 2001, becoming a dialogue partner seven years ago—only on 22 March 2016. 

Had our political leadership been thinking long and hard about such associations and what they bring to the table? Well, anything is possible. 

Fast forward. 

In our neighborhood, China is emerging as the second largest economy with a nominal GDP of $19, 423.48bn and as the second most powerful country in the world, militarily. India is not lagging far behind, with a PPP GDP of $3,591.03 and as the fourth strongest military force in the world. Beyond the neighborhood, Russia is again emerging as a formidable power, along with a number of other countries like Indonesia, South Korea, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Brazil, South Africa and Turkey.     

India recently hosted the G20 summit that saw the 24-year-old 20-member grouping welcome one more member to its fold—African Union, to be formally inducted later—in the presence of one more country from our extended neighborhood, Bangladesh (a robust economy in its own right), which was invited as a guest, along with Egypt, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, Spain and the UAE.

Climate change was one of the agendas of the summit and Nepal happens to be one of the countries suffering the most from the impact of this largely manmade disaster but seems to have lost its voice in the international arena. 

After the summit, a number of questions have arisen. They are: What does the apparent snubbing of Nepal at the summit that took place in a country with which we have cordial relations mean? Does it mean Nepal’s concerns, including those related to climate change, can easily be brushed under the carpet? What does it mean for Nepal’s standing in the comity of nations? 

There’s no doubt that the summit would have given Nepal, a member of the Global South, a golden opportunity to share its worries with the world and make big polluters accountable for a huge GHG emission that has wreaked havoc around the world, in the form of ozone depletion, rising temperatures, glacial retreat on the Himalayas, flash floods in the plains and a steady rise in sea levels.  

The summit was a huge miss for Nepal, given that the 19 G20 countries account for 85 percent of global gross domestic product, over 75 per cent of global trade and two-thirds of the globe’s entire population—not to mention a huge GHG footprint, the main culprit behind climate phenomena like glacial retreat, glacial lake outburst floods and rising temperatures.  

For now, let’s leave G20 aside and move on. 

BRICS, thus far a grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and an economic mammoth in its own right, has also been hogging the limelight of late. The 15-year five-nation club, comprising 40 per cent of the world’s population and more than 25 percent of global GDP, has been positioning itself as an economic counterweight to the West. What’s more, the non-military bloc is growing bigger with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates set to join it at the start of 2024.    

This, even as Nepal finds itself in ever-deepening crises on socio-economic, socio-religious and socio-political fronts, not entirely of its own making. Perhaps a desolate SAARC secretariat located in the heart of Kathmandu, a silent spectator to a long-running enmity between South Asia’s two giants that has been holding the bloc hostage for far too long, best explains Nepal’s dilemmas.  

Against this backdrop, ApEx asked a number of experts whether Nepal should strive to join emerging blocs like BRICS to make its voices heard and its presence felt in international fora. Here’s what they had to say.  

Professor Katak Malla, Expert on International Law

BRICS is a huge commodity market that seeks to curtail Euro-dollar domination. Nepal should not join any of the military blocs, it should remain non-aligned but it should of course join blocs like BRICS. If we become a BRICS member, we can use Chinese and other currencies for trade and commerce instead of having to rely on the Euro and dollar, and we can make our voice count using this forum. SAARC, of which Nepal is a founding member, has remained moribund because of enmity between Pakistan and India, and there are calls for reforms in the United Nations—amid the rise in the fortunes of several countries—to make the world body more representative.  

Political instability and the rule of law are lacking in the country. First and foremost, Nepal’s leaders and the public should mend ways to arrest this slide. The government should come up with a relevant domestic policy before joining any bloc.  

Pradip Gyawali, Former Foreign Minister and UML Leader

We are a small economy and as things stand now, we seem to be in no position to benefit from blocs like BRICS. Even if we strive to join the bloc, it’s unclear how BRICS members will respond.  

Many countries are seeking an alternative to the US-led global economy, they are rooting for de-dollarization. BRICS does not seem to be a strategic bloc, it appears to be a trade and cooperation forum, which is good for us. Overall, Nepal should look upon initiatives like BRICS positively. As for the CPN-UML, it favors multilateralism. In the long run, I think, it is in our interest to join blocs like BRICS as dependence on the dollar will decrease with increase in the use of local currencies.  

Khadga KC, Professor, Department of International Relations and Diplomacy, TU 

Being a relatively small state, Nepal always needs to prioritize multilateralism. Engaging more with regional and multilateral frameworks could be beneficial, however, we are not benefiting much from our association with WTO and BIMSTEC. So, I don’t think we need to rush in to socialize with the emerging economies. 

Rajan Bhattarai, Chief, CPN-UML’s Foreign Affairs Department

Nepal should step up efforts to join any sub-regional, regional and international organization whose objectives are compatible with her foreign policy objectives and priorities. 

With Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the UAE set to become its new members on Jan 1 next year, BRICS (comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa at present) is one such organization that our country should make efforts to be a part of. The bloc aims to promote international peace, stability, cooperation and investment and these objectives are similar to Nepal’s foreign policy objectives. 

So, our country should make attempts to be a member of this grouping. If our party—the CPN-UML—comes to power, we will intensify our engagements to join sub-regional, regional and international organizations whose vision, missions and objectives are in sync with our foreign policy objectives and priorities. Of course, BRICS is one of the organizations that we will strive to join. 

Sagun Sunder Lawoti, Spokesperson, RPP

King Prithvi Narayan Shah fittingly called Nepal a yam between two boulders. Our two neighbors are rising, signifying the transformation of a unipolar world order into a multipolar order, even as we find ourselves in a deep crisis.  In terms of size, our two neighbors are far bigger than us. At the same time, more than half of the countries around the world are smaller than us—in terms of population and geographical area.  As such, size is a relative term.  We as a nation need to work out ways to deal with a changing world that is offering both challenges and opportunities. What should our policy vis-a-vis blocs like BRICS and G20 be? What does the rise of neighbors mean for us? What challenges does it pose and what opportunities does it offer? Nepal has immense geostrategic advantage and opportunities. But then our leaders are focusing on petty interests rather than long-term national benefits.

Surya Raj Acharya, Political Analyst

BRICS is a grouping of emerging economies, of countries transitioning from developing to developed economies. It is basically a non-strategic and non-military bloc focused on trade and commerce. 

Bangladesh recently tried to join the grouping, but failed. It was but natural for that country to seek BRICS membership because it has a robust economy. Another case is the UAE, which will be formally inducted into BRICS soon. The UAE has made huge strides on the economic front over the decades and it deserves to be in the bloc. 

Given the size of their economy, countries like Thailand, the Philippines and Bangladesh fit the bill. 

As a country of geostrategic significance, Nepal should strive for BRICS membership in the long run. Nepal’s geopolitical location gives it an edge and the size of the country is no bar, though the size of the economy matters. 

Having said this, the present scenario is not rosy. The economy is not doing well. Besides, there’s no clear roadmap on how to deal with China, India, the United States and the European Union. The country seems to have no coherent foreign policy, thanks to the absence of well-defined domestic policies of which foreign policy is an extension. Petty interests of political parties have taken precedence. The rulers don’t even know what our national priorities are. Nepal’s international standing has taken a beating. 

We must first agree on our national interests and national priorities and this should be reflected in our domestic policies. Our national interest, not petty interests of political parties, should guide our foreign policy. 

In the long run, we should strive to join blocs like BRICS because they enable us to raise our profile, bring in foreign direct investment and benefit from technology transfer as well as trade and commerce partnerships.   

Dhawal Shumshere Rana, Leader, RPP 

There’s a huge gap between BRICS member-states and Nepal. They are emerging powers and they won’t induct us into the grouping given this gap. At present, it’s futile for Nepal to even think about it.    

The group of G20 

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

China

France

Germany

India

Indonesia

Italy

Japan

South Korea

Mexico

Russia

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

Turkiye

The United Kingdom

The United States

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

Member-states

China

India

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Russia

Pakistan

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Dialogue partners

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Cambodia

Nepal

Sri Lanka

Turkey

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Maldives

Nepal

Pakistan

Sri Lanka 

Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC)

Bangladesh

India

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Myanmar

Bhutan

Nepal 

A day after the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government blasted the then government under CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli for not duly communicating with the international community about Nepal’s new map comprising the Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura areas, the main opposition CPN-UML had the government in its crosshairs.

Addressing the Lower House, Raghuji Panta, a UML lawmaker, said, “The Parliament approved the new map of Nepal unanimously. But China’s recently-issued map does not show Nepal’s pointed map (including the territories of Lipulek, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura) in its neighborhood. It shows the old map.” “The Foreign Minister has flayed the previous government for ‘not communicating with the world’ about the new map,” he said. Panta went on, “With how many countries has this government communicated regarding Nepal’s new map? I demand an answer, pronto.”

Dil Kumari Rawal, another UML lawmaker, joined forces with Panta and accused both China and India of seeking to undermine Nepal’s status as a fully sovereign country.

Speaking at the National Assembly, Rawal blamed the two neighbors for disregarding Nepal’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.    

She was referring to India’s act of including Lipulek, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani in its new political map issued in 2019 and China’s recent act of including the old map of Nepal shorn of the 400-sq km that it has been claiming as her own by presenting historic records like land ownership certificates issued to local people and the receipt of land tax from them.

Rawal expressed doubts that the omission may have occurred due to weak diplomatic steps on the part of governments vis-a-vis the new map. She urged the government to attend to this serious matter. 

It may be noted that India and China signed a 40-point pact in 2015, which, among other things, envisages using Lipulek for bilateral trade, by sidelining Nepal. The then government had objected to the move, to little avail. 

Successive governments have pledged to resolve the dispute with India through diplomatic means, yet they have done precious little toward dispute resolution with the thorny issue not even figuring in bilateral talks. 

The main opposition CPN-UML upped its ante against the government on Tuesday, warning that it will not let the House function unless the government forms a high-level parliamentary committee to investigate the incident of a 100-kg gold consignment passing undetected through the high-security Tribhuvan International Airport on July 20. The illegal consignment, concealed in brake shoes of motorcycles and scooters, was intercepted and seized outside the airport at Sinamangal.      

Yogesh Bhattarai, a lawmaker from the CPN-UML, pointed out that government authorities like the customs, TIA management, immigration and law enforcement were caught napping on that fateful day.

He said, “This incident calls for questioning the Home Minister and the Finance Minister. Who will grill them if not a high-level committee?”

Bhattarai reasoned that the facts will not come to light unless a high-level parliamentary panel investigates the security breach, implying that subordinate agencies will find it hard to bring the ministers under the purview of a probe. 

The day saw another opposition party, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, also calling for a high-level probe into the case.  

Rastriya Prajatantra Party Chair and lawmaker Rajendra Lingden claimed that the government itself did not want the House to function, even as it continued to blame the opposition for stalling the proceedings. “Police and CIAA investigations have also been incomplete. The government should relent to the demand for a high-level committee.”

Lingden suspected that fear of its collapse may have prevented the government from constituting a high-level probe panel. He accused the three major parties of holding the country hostage through shady deals. 

“These parties are striving to form an unconstitutional power center through secretive talks.”  

Lingden urged Speaker Devraj Ghimire to clarify on the unparliamentary practice of the three parties making decisions and imposing them on other parties as this practice was going on under his watch. 

Lawmaker and Rastriya Prajatantra Party Chair Rabi Lamichhane also stood in favor of forming a high-level parliamentary probe panel for a credible investigation into the 100-kg gold case. 

House adjourned  

Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha tried to allay, in particular, the main opposition’s concerns while responding to questions raised in the House regarding the 100-kg illegal gold case. Shrestha asked the opposition to give the investigating agency, CIB, 35 days, stressing the need to have faith in the state’s agencies. He pointed out that transnational criminals were turning the country into a transit for gold smuggling, thereby deeply impacting the national security and the economy. 

However, the CPN-UML was far from impressed. It stated that the Home Minister had failed to answer most of its questions. As the obstruction continued, Speaker Ghimire adjourned the meeting till 1 pm, Wednesday.     

Preparations had been going on for quite some time on the Prime Minister’s maiden foreign visit after the assumption of high office about five months ago and desperation seemed palpable at Singhadurbar with some delays in getting a green signal from New Delhi. These preps have borne fruit with the PM finally flying off with a huge entourage on a four-day visit, at a time of deepening crises in the country and fresh attempts in Delhi to stoke up fresh territorial controversies with the unveiling of a continent size mural at the new Parliament building. In hindsight, Nepal has lost pounds of flesh while it has sought—or come under pressure—to deal with the powerful neighbor, but then learning from the past has been an alien concept for successive political leadership over the decades, regardless of its hues and shades. Indeed, some of the purported agendas of the visit have already begun ringing alarm bells in Nepal. There’s no dearth of experts, who see deals in the making over Lower Arun and Phukot Karnali as part of a long-thought-out strategy on the part of Delhi to get hold of all of Nepal’s river systems to meet a burgeoning need for water—for irrigation, potable water, fisheries and navigation—as well as power. Add to it some understanding on petro import infrastructure to ensure a smooth import of petroleum products in a country with enough hydropower potential to meet her energy needs, making Nepal’s laity wonder if these are our organic agendas. There’s no such thing called free lunch and the petro project, to be implemented in part with Indian aid, is no exception. The idea seems to be to establish India as the sole supplier of petroleum products to Nepal and make the country ever-reliant on imports, ruling out any future possibility of petroleum exploration and production in the country itself. This also means making Nepal’s economy run more and more on fossil fuels, whose prices are never stable, thereby ensuring a cheap export of hydropower generated in Nepal, with Indian capital and with the involvement of Indian companies, and increasing on the taxpayer the burden of running a costly, fossil fuel-powered economy. This is not written on stone, but has become a ‘tradition’ of sorts (Over the decades, we have done away with many traditions as part of our ceaseless embrace of all things modern, but then some traditions are far more sacred than others, right?). That is, Nepal PM’s first visit starts with the southern neighbor, followed by a visit to the northern one and the world beyond. Call it the state’s feeble attempt to maintain balanced ties with both the giants that have been rising steadily to global prominence even as we continue to slide further and further. The rise of the neighbors over the decades and our literal crashing on the ground from the high Himalayas shows how ineffective political systems governing a country of the rugged Himalayas, verdant hills, alluvial plains and perennial rivers has been when it comes to navigating the choppy waters of geopolitics and geostrategy. The details marked by instances of high treason like the Treaty of Sugauli (1816), the 1950’s Peace and Friendship Treaty, Koshi Agreement, Gandak Agreement, the Mahakali Treaty and recent deals over the Karnali, Arun and the Seti show that myopia has been a constant in our political leadership and bureaucracy, despite waves of political changes. While one Dhritarashtra and his Putramoh (affection toward his sons, Duryodhan, the eldest, in particular) had a very crucial role in making the war of Kurukshetra a reality along with a slew of characters like Duryodhan and Shakuni (the entire plot was of the master strategist Krishna, who had gotten tired of moral degradation of his own clan, the Yaduvamshis), we seem to have no dearth of such characters of the Mahabharata fame, at a time when Cold War 2.0 for global supremacy is in full swing!  These details offer important lessons to all and sundry on how not to conduct foreign policy, on how not to run (ruin) a country. The modern-day Kurukshetra playing out in the life of this country is beyond the scope of this short piece, so let’s focus on the upcoming prime ministerial visit. In an instability-plagued governance system like ours, a chief executive hardly gets to complete even half of the five-year term. So, PMs keep coming and going through a revolving door arrangement of sorts. Such is the state of affairs that the Nepalis have, literally, lost count of the prime ministers that have come to power and gone just like that, especially after 1990, a very troublesome period marked by the decade-long insurgency that began in February 13, 1996, the royal massacre of June 1, 2001, the adoption of a federal secular democratic republican system (May 28, 2008), the abolition of the monarchy, the Gorkha earthquake (April 25, 2015), the adoption of a federal constitution (September 20, 2015), the Indian blockade that followed and the hot-off-the-press Bhutanese refugee scam (2023). Despite this all-too-frequent change of guard, one thing is almost certain: Upon assuming office, the incumbent will start a slew of foreign visits by first embarking on a visit to the southern neighbor. For that first visit to materialize, the invite has to come from the host country. If the invite does not come or comes late, the rulers get a feeling that Delhi may not be happy with them, meaning they have their days in power numbered. So, our chief executives wait for such an invite with bated breath and do everything to accommodate the neighbor’s concerns even at the expense of national interest. As for the agendas of such visits, they do not matter much because the agendas of the powerful neighbor prevail anyway. Border disputes will be raised once again (albeit feebly), border security will be discussed once again, some projects will be jointly inaugurated and some rivers will be given away in the name of cooperation in the water resources sector. No big deal, isn’t it? A country ‘rich’ in water resources can gift one more river to a dear neighbor even after losing control over such important rivers like the Koshi, Gandaki and the Mahakali, even at a time when it is becoming clear as daylight that future inter-state conflicts will be largely over water. And such an exchange, like previous ones, will take bilateral relations to ‘new heights’ (perhaps atop the Sagarmatha, the world’s tallest peak), if press releases issued after such exchanges are any guide. The only way for our bilateral relations with the neighbor down south is to go up, up and further up, isn’t it? There’s hardly any chance of the relations going a bit southwards and minimizing the damage resulting from unilateral and mindless development activities like dams and embankments that have resulted in inundation of our farmlands and settlements, encroachment upon our bordering territories, atrocities against people living along the border. For a change, how about using such a forum to assess the impact of the open border and influx of displaced populations from India and the extended neighborhood on our national security? And how about having a note-taker jot down important matters discussed and decisions taken, for the sake of institutional memory and transparency in our dealings? The Nepalis have begun to wonder if a visit to the southern neighbor has to be always marked by Nepal receiving a few more raw deals in the name of special, ages-old and people-to-people relations. They have started questioning if a visit down south is mandatory after every change of guard, as if to pay tribute to some emperor. While engaging Delhi, the political and bureaucratic leadership should not forget that they have no right to sign a deal that harms national interests and jeopardizes the future of successive generations of Nepalis. They should remain aware of the fact that a conscious citizenry is watching and will hold them to account in the event of some shady deal meant to serve short-term interests of the ruling elite at the expense of long-term interests of Nepal and the Nepalis.

President Ram Chandra Paudel on Wednesday authenticated a ‘controversial’ Bill to amend the Citizenship Act that many constitutional experts had regarded as dead. The President’s Office said in a press statement that President took the move in accordance with Article 61 (2) (3) (4) and Article 66 of the Constitution of Nepal and Supreme Court-propounded principles after receiving a letter from the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers requesting authentication of the Bill. The move came right before Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s maiden foreign visit after the assumption of the high office some five months ago. The presidential seal of approval has already stoked controversy with a number of constitutional experts describing it as a breach of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 in its letter and spirit. President Paudel’s predecessor, Bidya Devi Bhandari, had serious reservations about the Bill that the then government had tabled on July 08 last year. On August 15, 2022, President Bhandari had returned this very Bill to the House of Representatives for a review, in accordance with a constitutional provision, 15 days after its submission for authentication after endorsement from the House of Representatives and the National Assembly on July 22 and July 28, respectively. But the Parliament had again sent the legal instrument to the President’s Office for authentication without incorporating presidential concerns. Subsequently, President Bhandari kept the Bill on hold, courting controversy with a section of the legal fraternity pointing that it was a breach of authority on the part of the head of the state. Amid a continuing controversy, the country went for federal and provincial elections on November 20, 2022 and a new Parliament took shape along with new governments and a new President. This meant the expiry of the old Bill, per experts. But the Dahal-led coalition government chose to press ahead with the same Bill and got an express seal of approval, without the President bothering to send it back to the HoR for review. Subash Chandra Nembang, then Constituent Assembly Chair and CPN-UML lawmaker, says the presidential move shows that the government has embarked on a path not recognized by the Constitution. When the then President refused to authenticate this Bill, some parties accused her of violating the Constitution. This time, the government chose to submit the Bill to the President instead of tabling it to the House of Representatives or the National Assembly for approval. Subsequently, the President authenticated it. Which constitutional provision allows the government to present a Bill to the President by undermining the Parliament? The very parties that had accused the then President of violating the Constitution by not authenticating the Bill have opted for an unconstitutional move, he says. Ananta Raj Luitel,  constitutional expert, says the Constitution does not allow the President to undertake such an unconstitutional move. According to the restrictive clause of Article 111(1), no bills under consideration at the Parliament—the lower house (HoR) or the upper house (National Assembly)—will be active following the dissolution of the HoR, Luitel said. As per Article 113 (4) of the Constitution, if any bill is returned by the President to the Parliament with suggestion or advice and if the Parliament sends it back to the President, the Head of the State should endorse it within 15 days. Luitel says: The Bill expired at the time of the then president, meaning the Cabinet has no authority to send it to the incumbent president and the latter has no authority to authenticate it. Tika P Dhakal, Press Adviser to then President Bidya Devi Bhandari, says the Bill was already dead, with the end of the tenure of the then Parliament. The incumbent government should have brought a new Bill in the Parliament and, following a due process, submitted it to the President for authentication, Dhakal said.  He says: “But it acted as if it were introducing some ordinance, not bothering to differentiate between an ordinance and a Bill. This is a double breach of the Constitution.”

Devendra Gautam of ApEx caught up with water resources expert and former minister for water resources, Dipak Gyawali, to discuss Nepal-India water relations and the way forward.  What’s your take on major river deals with India? Indian scholars, including those from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, have said this previously… India first decides that it needs this or that river and then imposes a treaty/agreement on Nepal. Besides, a treaty/agreement should be read in its wider political context, whether it’s the Treaty of Sugauli or the 1950’s Peace and Friendship Treaty.  Nepal entered into the Koshi Agreement after the overthrow of the Rana regime in the 1950’s. That was during the premiership of Matrika Prasad Koirala. The year 1958 saw Nepal under the premiership of BP Koirala signing the Gandak Agreement with India. These deals happened despite protests in Nepal.  For about 30 years of the Panchayat regime, no such treaty/agreement happened with India. In fact, the regime of King Mahendra revised some of the unequal provisions of the Koshi and Gandak agreements through talks with India.  King Birendra was under tremendous pressure from India to give away the Karnali river, but he did not budge. After the political change of the 1990’s, the first thing that the democratically-elected government of Girija Prasad Koirala did was secretly sign the much-controversial Mahakali Treaty with India.  Nearly 25 years after the Mahakali Treaty, the promised dawn of national prosperity is not even on the horizon…….. In the case of the Mahakali, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Vishwanath Prasad Upadhyay could have nixed this legal instrument while the ball was in the court. The court could have ordered the passage of this instrument with a simple majority instead of a two-third majority in the parliament. But in a back and forth, the court sent the treaty back to the parliament, which subsequently passed it with a two-third majority, courtesy of the Sher Bahadur Deuba-led Nepali Congress government, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party of the Panchas and the CPN-UML.  The Krishna Prasad Bhattarai-led NC government, formed after the success of the 1990’s movement, had faced Indian pressure to enter into the Mahakali Treaty. But the diplomat that he was, Bhattarai told the Indians that his sole agenda was to deliver the country a democratic constitution.  However, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala took the matter in his own hands after the Congress got a two-third majority in the democratic elections held after the 90’s movement. During a visit to India, he signed the legal instrument secretly.    Initially, the UML was against this treaty and had staged demonstrations against it. But as the then prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress, took it upon himself to get this legal instrument a House nod, the UML balked and played a role in the ratification of the treaty along with the Rastriya Prajatantra Party of the Panchas.  What’s more, the Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government of the CPN-UML harmed Nepal’s interests further by entering into a package deal with India by including the development of the Pancheshwar Project.      Let’s revisit the background of this treaty. India had already constructed the Tanakpur barrage, along with a left afflux bund on a patch of highland on the Nepali territory, to divert Mahakali waters into the Sharada canal. India had also built the Tanakpur barrage and wanted the Panchayat regime to rubber-stamp this act. But the regime refused to do this. That was one of the reasons behind the abolition of the king-led Panchayat regime in the 90’s and straining of India’s relations with the monarchy.  While defending this legal instrument despite public protests against the same, politicians of the time, including Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC, KP Sharma Oli of the CPN-UML and Prakash Chandra Lohani and Pashupati Shumsher JBR of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, had declared that the Sun would rise from the West, that Nepal would get trillions of rupees, with the implementation of this instrument…… That has not happened even 26 years after the signing of the treaty.  There’s room for improvement in such treaties/deals? There surely is. Take the case of the Mahakali Treaty. It has a provision for revision every 10 years. But none of the leaders have bothered to press for a revision in Nepal’s favor all these years. This is because such a move will leave them red-faced as none of their promises—a new dawn from the west, earnings of trillions of rupees every year—have materialized.   Instead of seeking the revision of existing deals, successive governments have inked fresh deals over Arun, West Seti and Upper Karnali rivers….. In the 1990’s, there was a plan to develop the Arun III hydropower project for domestic consumption. We protested the project citing financing arrangements that would have pushed project costs over the roof. Eventually, the World Bank withdrew from the project. There’s a need to keep in mind the fact that we were not against the project per se, our protest was against the terms of financing that would have made the project one of the costliest when it came to per unit cost of power generation…..  What’s the controversy over the Upper Karnali project? As for the Upper Karnali project, the Supreme Court has issued an interim order (November 3 2022), putting on hold the agreement based on which the Indian promoter company Gandhi Mallikarjun Rao (GMR) was planning to sell 500 MW to Bangladesh after completing the construction of the 900-MW Upper Karnali Project. This is a welcome development. The Karnali is a highly lucrative project. The Karnali-Chisapani basin has the capacity to generate thousands of megawatts of hydroelectricity, that too at cheaper rates. Development of the 900-MW project seems to be intended to capture the whole river system. Upstream, for example, in rivers like the Tila and Jawa, which drain into the Karnali river system, there are small projects. The 900-MW project will render the future of projects predating it uncertain. This way, the project is indeed aimed at getting hold of the entire river system. We need some of the projects for domestic consumption as well. Karnali is one among such projects. Also, there’s a need to keep in mind the fact that the developer interested in the Upper Karnali project has questionable credentials.  As for the 750-MW West Seti and 450-MW Seti VI projects, the Indian state-owned company, NHPC Limited, has plans to develop them. One more thing: Power transmission to India should happen through national transmission lines and the government itself should invest in the development of such lines. It should not allow a foreign company/entity to also construct its own transmission line within the Nepali territories for cross-border transmission of electricity. Does our political leadership, regardless of its hue and shades, have the spine to say no to projects if they tend to harm our interests? No, it doesn’t. Recently though, Bhutan said no to the Indian proposal to develop the Sunkoshi project. This example should inspire us to put our national priorities first.  Nepal seems to be going the way of Laos, the ‘battery charger of Southeast Asia’ …..  No, this is far from the case. Laos is way smarter than us. After developing hydropower projects needed for domestic consumption, Laos has stopped venturing into more hydels. Also, unlike Nepal, Laos does not have the flatlands, so it does not have to worry about the plains going under the water because of a dam-based hydel. As for the Indians, they are very clever, they take their national interest seriously. When it comes to water-sharing arrangements with Nepal, they refuse even to abide by the Helsinki Convention, leave alone the guidelines of the World Commission on Dams.  Each water treaty/deal with Nepal is unique is what they say. On the other hand, we are not clever, we do not have a vision regarding the utilization of water resources for our own good. Our political leaders of different hues and shades do New Delhi’s bidding for the hospitality received during political struggles by entering into deals that serve India’s interests.  That is why, perhaps, Indian officials and experts say of the Nepali people (I have often heard them make this remark): Achchhe log hein, par bevkuf hain (The Nepalis are good people, but they are fools).  We have a suppressed demand for energy. Despite this, we are talking about exporting the green energy—hydroelectricity—not only to India, but also to Bangladesh……  Yes, per household power consumption in India is 1200 MW, whereas in Nepal it’s barely 300 MW. Instead of focusing on increasing the consumption of green energy, we are talking about exporting it.  This, despite several studies pointing at multiplier effects associated with domestic consumption of hydroelectricity. Domestic consumption of 1 cent of electricity yields a benefit of 86 cents, per a USAID study.    For Nepal, India is a monopsony market, meaning that Nepal cannot command price for its green energy in the Indian market. This is because per unit hydropower generation cost in Nepal is higher than in India and other countries. We cannot sell it cheap, given a high cost of power generation. Ethiopia is constructing the (6,450-MW) Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile at far cheaper rates. Why can’t we do the same? Per unit power generation cost should be more or less the same around the world. Why does this not apply to Nepal?  About the prospects for exporting hydropower to Bangladesh via India…. I remember interacting with India’s former Foreign Secretary Muchkund Dubey. In such interactions, Foreign Secretary Dubey used to show India’s willingness to purchase hydropower generated in Nepal. But the high cost of generation of hydropower in Nepal is a factor that cannot be discounted while talking about the export of hydropower.  Flood control is the topmost priority for Bangladesh. As for water and sources of energy, it has enough of them, natural gas and all. I have said during interactions with Bangladeshi experts and officials that your country wants to export flood to Nepal throughout the year by investing in the construction of dam-based hydels. If such projects materialize, Nepali territories coping with seasonal floods and inundation will have to deal with floods and inundation all year round. Even this is okay, I say to them, provided they are willing to foot the associated costs, including the cost of inundation of our territories for the sake of protecting Bangladesh from flooding and inundation.   I don’t think India will allow the use of its territories for the transmission of hydroelectricity generated in Nepal to Bangladesh.  Your take on Nepal’s increasing reliance on fossil fuel, whose prices are never stable? While Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai was in power, he went for the expansion of roads. This move is also behind the increased consumption of fossil fuel in Nepal. Data show that this petroleum addiction has been increasing in the country over the years.  For motorists like me, wider roads are indeed good. But what of the other people? What about the country? Increasing addiction of petroleum products is harmful for the environment and other aspects.  Produced water—water collected in dams and reservoirs by inundating territories and displacing communities—costs worldwide. Are we, by demanding a fair price for produced water, ‘weaponizing water’? India has introduced provisions stating that it will not purchase power generated with Chinese investment. Despite a toughening of stance, India sold the Upper Marsyangdi hydel license to a Chinese company. On the contrary, India is weaponizing water through such provisions, not Nepal, by taking it as a strategic asset. We seem to be focusing on hydroelectricity, not on water for irrigation, navigation, fisheries and drinking while going for harnessing our rivers. We seem to be forgetting that sources of freshwater are very limited in comparison to sources of energy…. Consider, for example, the reservoir-based Budhi Gandaki Project (1,200-MW). This project can irrigate around 1 lakh hectares of farmland down south. It can also irrigate fields across the border. We need to take cross-border benefits into account while developing this project. The project should be built on the basis of cost and benefit-sharing.   With Nepal’s water sovereignty severely weakened, how will the local levels, the provinces and the center fare? Do political leaders discuss this issue with you?      Political leaders do not consult us. In fact, they don’t need to. Our inputs are all there, in the public domain. What they need to do is implement those suggestions. They need to put national interest above all else. 

Along a path strewn with rocks, let's take a walk, dear readers. Let’s begin with two huge pieces of Himalayan rocks that once adorned Thulo Pahiro, Kaligandaki rural municipality-6 in Myagdi district. For local people, the two rocks lodged on a ravine above a stretch of the sacred Kaligandaki river were a familiar sight. But the eyes searching for the two giants will no longer be able to find them in their birthplace. (Why on Earth would anyone worry over two giant rocks? You see, the Nepalis are a peculiar being, actually. These ‘savages’ worship trees, mountains, rivers, boulders and what not!) As per government orders, the two quartzite and calcite rocks have marched on, initially for Janakpur, the birthplace of Sita Maiya (Goddess Sita) and the capital of King Janak, from where they will be transferred to Ayodhya with Nepal also footing the shipping cost of the precious gift, most probably. Per a report in the state-owned The Rising Nepal daily, the Gandaki Province and the federal government had decided to send this gift in response to a correspondence  from India. The initial plan was to carve the rocks into larger-than-life-size statues of Ram Lalla (lovely, cuddly Lord Ram in his childhood avatar) and Sita Maiya, and install them at a Ram Temple whose construction is going on in full swing. The plan is to complete the works and inaugurate the temple well before the 2024 elections that may not exactly be a cakewalk for the ruling Bharatiya Janta Party. With the economy not in the pink of health, the Indian National Congress resurging along with a formidable Aam Aadmi Party and a ghost from the past haunting it somewhat, Hindu votes will be crucial than ever before for the ruling party. Much to the inconvenience of the rocks bound for Ayodhya (now, who cares about the inconvenience of rocks?), there seems to be a little change of plan (Plan B if you will), though. Contrary to earlier reports, The Hindu reports (‘Nepal temple prepares to gift 350-tonne stones to build Ram statue in Ayodhya’, 17 Jan) that it’s unclear if the rocks will be used to carve out the statues. Also, there’s incongruity about the weight of the rocks. While earlier reports in the Nepali and Indian media outlets suggested that the rocks weighed around 18 and 16 tonnes, the daily states that the rocks have a combined weight of 350 tonnes! Is this because of confusion about metric tonne and tonne? Or have these humble Himalayan rocks suddenly started possessing the divine power to change their shape and form, like Lord Hanuman, who could transform into an insect at Ashok Batika, a giant at the court of Ravan and anything in between, as his role demanded? Interestingly, the government decision to give away the rocks comes amid its increased restrictions on the mining and extraction industry thriving on rampant exploitation of natural resources. The decision coincides with the anniversary of Dilip Mahato (24), who was killed deliberately three years ago for protesting against rampant extraction of riverine materials in Dhanusha. Images of a group of apologists from Nepal—government officials, priests, experts and politicians—performing kshmapuja on the banks of the Kaligandanki on the very day of a huge national tragedy (the Yeti Airlines plane crash that ended up killing all 72 on board) are now frozen in time. A mute spectator to the daylight robbery and rampant cross-border smuggling of the Shaligrams, which bear the imprints of some of the most ancient sea creatures, a woebetide Kaligandaki keeps flowing. What else can she do if our all-powerful federal, provincial and local governments keep mum? She cannot shout out loud and declare that the Shaligrams and all other treasures on the riverbed belong to the very cradle of the earliest forms of life, or can she? Under the human scheme of things, all that the mighty river can do is tremble at the possibility of further exploitation of riverine resources in the context of great geopolitical games for regional and global supremacy. The images featuring a crop of apologists on the banks of the Kaligandaki hark back to the times when Nepal’s rulers chose to sell the country down the river for their petty gains, despite protests from the people, only to repent later. In modern times, acts of high treason have been continuing unabated since the Treaty of Sugauli (1816) with Nepal forced to part with pounds of flesh after each wave of political change through unjust and unequal legal instruments like the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty (1950), the Gandak Agreement (1959), the Koshi Agreement (1966) and the much-controversial Mahakali Treaty (1996) with the successor of the British empire emerging as Nepal’s neo-colonial master. Recent days have seen a federal secular democratic republic of Nepal lose more of her lifelines. Without control over these resources, how will the center, the provinces, the towns and the villages survive, let alone prosper? Thanks to these instruments that are also the result of great geostrategic and geopolitical games for global and regional supremacy, Nepal, a non-aligned country used to minding her own business and charting her destiny on her own, has been living a neocolonial nightmare. As India celebrates her 74th Republic Day marking her transition to a republic after the end of the British rule brought about by an untiring and inspiring struggle against colonialism and imperialism , her rulers would do well to opt for some serious soul-searching vis-a-vis her relations with Nepal. This is because very often after their fights against oppression and injustice, the champions of higher ideals like human rights and democracy end up becoming the forces that they detested so much. While describing our bilateral ties, there’s a tendency to invoke the past, which is a contested territory anyway, and forget the present. While invoking divinities in the relations, there’s a tendency to forget humanity. There’s a tendency to forget that we are two fully sovereign countries, regardless of our respective size and importance in the comity of nations. While stressing the need to take them to new heights, there’s a tendency, deliberate or otherwise, to forget ground realities and Nepal’s sensibilities. Very often in bilateral fora, ordinary Nepalis feel that on both sides of the negotiating table are people representing the powerful neighbor’s interest at the expense of Nepal. At every such forum, fears of another sellout grip Nepal. As India takes immense pride in calling herself the world’s largest democracy, the onus is on her to do some soul-searching and create an environment of trust and add more elements of democracy in our bilateral relations. Let great celebrations of independence also offer us an opportunity to make way for more equal, just and humane ties.

The new House of Representatives (HoR) has found some important business, right after its first meeting post-Nov 20 elections. The business came on Saturday in the form of competing claims for the powerful position of the main opposition, from the Nepali Congress and the Nepal Workers’ and Peasants’ Party. In terms of numbers, the Congress (the largest party in the parliament, with 88 members) has a huge advantage over the NWPP, which has 1 member in the parliament. But the Congress vote for the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government in the Jan 10 vote of confidence has deemed it ineligible for helming the opposition bench, if legal provisions and comments from the constitutional-legal fraternity are any guide. The Act on Salary and Facilities for Office-bearers and Members of the Federal Parliament, 2073 recognizes a party having 10 percent or more lawmakers in the HoR or the National Assembly as the opposition party. But the act comes with a caveat. It stipulates that such a party should neither be part of the Council of Ministers nor should it have supported Cabinet formation. Sub-section 2 of sub-clause (e) of the Act implies: If more than one parties having 10 percent or more seats in the HoR or the NA have equal number of seats, then the parties shall recognize a party as the opposition (in the respective chambers) through mutual consent. As such is not the case, the Speaker’s prerogative, enshrined in sub-clause 3 of the Act, comes into play here. It implies: If there’s no written mutual consent or if no party other than the one in the Cabinet or supporting it has 10 percent members in the HoR or the NA, the NA Chair or the Speaker should designate the opposition party (in the two chambers, respectively). On this very ground, the NWPP is staking its claim. Prem Suwal, the NWPP lawmaker, on Saturday demanded in writing that the parliament declare it the main opposition as it is the first and the largest among the parties that did not vote for the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government. While speaking at the first meeting of the House on Thursday, Suwal demanded, citing federal laws, that parliament proceedings should commence only after designating the main opposition. Constitutional expert Bhimarjun Acharya says: By voting for the government, the Nepali Congress has lost political, moral and constitutional bases to be the main opposition. He says making the Congress the main opposition will set a bad precedent. Senior lawmaker and National Assembly member Radheshyam Adhikari preferred not to comment on the matter, saying he was studying the developments. All this means that the ball has landed in the Speaker’s court. Responding to claims from the Congress and the NWPP for the coveted position, the parliament secretariat has said it will make a decision on the basis of prevailing laws and regulations. Whatever decision the secretariat takes, it will not be without controversy, that’s a given.