Submit your Article

It’s incredible how the political parties that promulgated the new constitution, hailing it as among the ‘best in the world’, have been so disinterested in implementing it. These include the parties now running the federal government, as well as the main opposition. The seventh constitution of democratic Nepal was also the most revolutionary: for the first time people had written their own charter. It was also the constitution that cemented Nepal’s new federal status, marking a decisive break in the country’s 250-year-old history as a unitary state.

The old structure had proven incapable of delegating power and responsibilities down to the grassroots. Without this kind of devolution, it was hard to see the country develop and its people politically and economically empowered. The new constitution provided for three tiers of government: federal, provincial and local. The idea was that the provincial and local governments would act with a high degree of autonomy, and with direct participation of the people at the grassroots. For this they would get enough support from Kathmandu, the federal capital.

Yet the old unitary mindset has been hard to change. The federal officials have been most reluctant to devolve powers. All the important decisions continue to be made in Kathmandu and imposed on the seven provinces and the 753 local units. Shamefully, over 70 percent of the federal budget goes to the federal government, with the rest divided among the local and provincial governments. As the lower level governments are without even basic infrastructure and manpower, this allocation is inadequate—and unjust.

This is an example of the deep chasm between the high aims of the new constitution and their realization. Old unitary demarcations remain, as do the unitary officialdom that often competes for influence with the new provincial and local officials. Despite an overwhelming mandate, the federal government has been unable to make any headway in improving the economy or ensuring that people’s lives and properties are protected. Nor do the historically disadvantaged minorities feel the new charter, or its custodians, work in their interests. The government would do well to pay heed to their legitimate grievances so as to broaden the constitution’s ownership.

As public dissatisfaction mounts, federalism is being blamed for everything wrong in the country of late. But it’s more a case of our political leadership and top bureaucrats refusing to shed their old unitary lens and to transcend self-interest. On this fourth anniversary of the new constitution, its promulgators need to do some soul-searching. Otherwise, the new edifice they are building on it could come crashing down.

This yearly signature event of the Photojournalist Club, this year titled “Literacy and Multilingualism photo contest,” received 636 submissions from 182 photographers. If you go to Nepal Art Council, Babarmahal you will see the best 54 photographs that highlight the essence of learning and teaching experiences in the multilingual settings of Nepal. On September 8, three best photographs and two honorary mentions were given cash prizes.

Pankaj Shrestha bagged the first prize. His photo “Help begins with understanding” shows a teacher helping an autism affected boy learn in classroom. Sunita Dangol got the second prize with her photo of the living goddess Kumari getting private lessons at home. The photo of Anish Regmi, which won the third prize, shows deaf students communicate in sign language. 

Photo Mahendra Khadaka

Bhanu Roshan Rajbhandari, an advocate, who had come to see the exhibit, says the photos give him mixed feelings. “As beautiful as the photos are, they also hide much pain,” he says. He adds that these photos make it clear how far our education system still has to go. Till now, students have to sit on mats or beside rivers to study. “These photos make me question where all the investment in education is going,” he says.

Photo Mahendra Khadaka

The exhibition is aimed at promoting social cohesion and providing a platform to bring better understanding of effective learning in our diverse environment. Anyone interested in photography or in the state of education in Nepal should consider visiting the exhibition which runs till September 14. 

Raj Kishor Yadav is the current head of the six-member Rastriya Janata party-Nepal (RJPN) presidium. The Madhes-based opposition party has 17 seats in the federal lower house, joint third in the legislature with the Samajbadi Party Nepal. The RJPN has been strongly raising the issue of constitution amendment. It has also asked the federal government to come up with a clear stand on the unfolding Kashmir issue and says it rejects the report of the India-Nepal EPGs. To achieve constitution amendment, it is now in merger talks with the Samajbadi Party. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with the HoR member from Siraha-4 for insights on these issues.  

What is RJPN’s position on the recent developments in India-administered Kashmir?

It is India’s internal matter. India’s decision to scrap Article 370 of the constitution was endorsed by both its houses, and the Indian President has also authenticated it. Constitutionally and legally, there is now no space for questions. As a neighboring country, we should support India’s official position. When it comes to human rights, it is a global issue that the Indian government has to be sensitive about.

Do you think Nepal should clearly say Kashmir is India’s internal matter?

Yes. As Kashmir has been dealt with within the constitutional framework of India, it would be good if Nepal government comes up with a formal statement acknowledging as much.

You spoke of human rights as a global issue. Shouldn’t Nepal speak up about the human and civil rights of Kashmiris then?

At this point, Nepal government should endorse the decision of its Indian counterpart. If tomorrow a big human rights issue emerges, Nepal could react on the basis of facts on the ground. But till date I have not heard of grave human rights violations in Kashmir.  

Madhes-based parties seem displeased with the final report of the Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Groups (EPG). Why?

It would be inappropriate to speak about the content of a report that is yet to be made public. Nor has it been submitted to the two governments. Nonetheless, we have had some reservations since the inception of the two EPGs. One reservation was regarding representation in the Nepali EPG. When we talk about Nepal and India, it is not confined to state-to-state relation. In this relation Madhes is always a big factor. We are the citizens who live along the border, and so we are directly affected by the state of our bilateral relation. So there should be representation of Madhes in the EPG. Without this, no report would be true to the ground realities.

But what can you do? The report has already been finalized. There are also allegations that India is promoting you to reject it.

Again, we have had reservations right from the start and I have also spoken about it in the parliament. The report will be acceptable neither to Nepal nor to India. New EPGs should be formed by incorporating the views of the people living along border areas of the two countries. Even if Nepal government accepts the report, we will reject it.

Without knowing what is there in the report, how can you say it is flawed?

If you see the global context, the issue of representation comes up high in political struggles everywhere. In a process that is going to determine our fate, there should be our representation because we have a unique understanding and experience of the issue. It is related to the psychology of people living in border areas. We have better knowledge of it. So a report prepared without our representation would not be in keeping with the ground realities.

Did you communicate your concerns on the EPG with the Indian Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar during his recent Kathmandu trip?

The issue of EPG did not figure prominently in that meeting. We express our concerns over the EPG with the Nepal government. It is the responsibility of Nepal government to address security and other concerns of its citizens. We believe Nepal government should be more sensitive to our reservations over the EPG. 

In a separate context, currently there seems to be no environment for the amendment of the constitution as per your demand or for another popular uprising in Madhes. What will the RJPN do then?

This constitution is incomplete, as we had been saying even before its promulgation. Now, everyone realizes that there are certain flaws in it that need to be removed. It would good for the country if this issue is addressed without any delay. Mainly, the prime minister should be positive on our demand.  PM Oli assures us that the constitution is a dynamic document and amendable; that it is not something written in stone unlike the Bible or the Koran. It is an urgent matter that is being needlessly delayed. For over a year we supported this government. Later, we did not find a sense of urgency to amend the constitution. We withdrew our support and are now in the opposition bench. We still hope the government takes us seriously. After the prime minister returns from Singapore, we will hold formal talks with him and ask him to amend the constitution, to withdraw cases against our leaders and cadres including against Resham Chaudhary, and to address other issues related to Madhes. If PM Oli and other parties do not listen, we will be compelled to hit the street.

But you don’t have many options, do you?

The understanding that the prime minister is not ready to amend the charter and that Madhes-based parties cannot lead another movement is superficial. First, the seriousness and sensitivity of any issue determines how we move ahead. The prime minister has never rejected our demand of amendment. As far as the concern that we cannot lead another movement is concerned, movements happen as per the demands of time and people. People expect PM Oli to correct himself and his two-third government will be ready to amend the constitution. But they are growing impatient. We will take decisions based on people’s mindset. We are convinced that people will take to the streets if we launch such a movement.

How do you tackle the perception that Madhes-based parties are losing the trust of their constituencies and thus are in no position to lead another Madhes movement?

The way some people see Madhes through Kathmandu’s lenses is biased, and subjective rather than objective. Let’s evaluate the current power balance in the country. The Nepali Congress, the country’s oldest party, does not have a government in a single province; but we have a government in at least one province. We carry the agenda of people so they are always with us. We also have strong organizational base which has been seen in various Madhes movements and during elections. We are also aware that people expect the next Madhes movement to reach to a logical conclusion.

Are you seeking India’s support in constitution amendment?

Constitution drafting and promulgation is an internal matter. Nepal’s government should take all internal stakeholders into confidence. We launched the 2015 Madhes movement and it hit India because of the open border. That is why India expressed its concern with Nepal government. We imposed the blockade. How India dealt with its security issues is not our concern. But when we talk of constitution amendment, India is naturally linked. If you go back to 2008, Nepal government signed an agreement with Madhes-based parties with the Indian ambassador at the time playing the role of a mediator—at the request of Nepal government. The Indian side was involved because the Nepal government sought its presence. Our demands are linked to India in order to attack us and create an illusion. But whenever Nepal government finds itself in trouble, it seeks India’s support.

What is the progress in the merger talks between the RJPN and Samajbadi Party Nepal? It seems like the RJPN wants to elevate itself from a regional party to a national one.

Certainly. We want to accommodate all the oppressed and marginalized people. We should move towards national consolidation, and there is a need for alternative political forces for this. Certainly. It has now been proven that it is difficult to resolve national issues without being a national party. The NCP carries a communist ideology, Nepal Congress is a liberal democratic party and ours will be alternative political party which raises the agenda of social justice and equality.

Various parties and groups have launched separate movements and highlighted underlying issues. But we failed to coalesce those movements into a strong political force capable of addressing all those problems. Now the RJPN should push for unification with likeminded people. We want to initiate unification talks with the Samajbadi Party and other political forces. There are some progressive leaders inside Nepal Communist Party and Nepali Congress on national agenda. We want to associate with them as well.

There are reports of rifts in the RJPN concerning the proposed merger with the Samajbadi Party.

The RJPN seeks respectful unification. We want to merge the two parties in order to form a new party with new thinking and vigor. There are some gaps in our understanding of some issues and we are trying find a common ground. In this period, there was no meeting of the six-member presidium. Only the political committee met. I was under pressure to hold the meeting to prepare party’s official position on national and intra-party issues.

What are the conflicting issues?

They are mostly organizational issues. The RJPN was formed after the merger of six different Madhes-based parties. There were conflicting understanding on several organizational issues. Some of them have already been resolved. We are discussing how to talk with the government and prepare for another movement. We will talk to PM Oli as soon as he is back in Nepal.

The much-awaited XPulse will be avail­able in NADA in two variants—an adven­ture-focused XPulse 200 and a touring-fo­cused XPulse 200T. The XPulse 200 and the XPulse 200T are powered by the same 199.6cc, single-cylinder, air-cooled engine from the Xtreme 200R, but Hero will likely tune the engine differently on the XPulse variants. The XPulse 200 and XPulse 200T will both feature single-channel ABS, LED lighting at both ends, a digital instrument cluster with Bluetooth connectivity and navigation, and a windscreen for better wind protection.

Speaking of the XPulse 200, the motor­cycle gets a long-travel suspension and larger spoked wheels (21-inch up front and 18-inch at the rear) wrapped in knobby wire-spoked tires. It makes use of a box-section swingarm and a mono­shock rear suspension at the rear, and telescopic forks at the front. The front forks have 190mm travel while the gas-charged monoshock at the rear has 170mm travel. It also features a luggage rack, knuckle guards, a high-mounted exhaust for better water-wading capability, and a sump guard.

On the other hand, the XPulse 200T is the touring version of the XPulse 200 and gets revised ergonomics, a lower ground clearance of 30mm than the XPulse 200, taller gearing, and 17-inch alloy wheels shod with a 100/80-sec­tion tire at the front and a 130/70-section tire at the rear.

Ayurveda is really a way of life that keeps you fit and healthy through your adherence to natural rhythms and cycles. It employs a variety of natu­ral elements to bring harmony to the physiology. The Ayurveda Home brings to you an herbal oil massage, which will refresh your body after a weary travel. The package consists of a Shi­rodhara session with warm herbal oils and pick and drop services. This 90-minute session will cost you Rs 11,500. For further details contact +97761463205.

One of the most mesmerizing rituals at Pashupat­inath Temple is the Pashupati Bagmati Aarati. The priests perform the aarati through circular motions of oil lamps and dedicating their act to the divine. Devotees sing Bhajans (songs with reli­gious themes) during the aarati, creating a blissful surrounding. The aarati starts at 6 pm every eve­ning. This is a ritual that allows everyone to take part and creates a kind of unity between the gods and their devotees.

Thursday, August 22: The Cab­inet amends rules allowing the prime minister to call cabinet meetings from abroad through a video conference.

Friday, August 23: The Supreme Court asks the federal government to come up with reasons behind the formulation of laws to provide monthly sal­ary to all local level represen­tatives.

Saturday, August 24: Minis­ter of Labor, Employment and Social Security Gokarna Bista talks of how the implementation of the landmark social security scheme has hit roadblocks due to a lack of cooperation from industrialists.

Sunday, August 25: Minister of Information and Communica­tion Technology Gokul Banskota assures his countrymen that the republican system is safe and secure.

Monday, August 26: The Supreme Court issues a verdict in Ncell’s favor in a case filed by the private telecom giant against the Large Taxpayers’ Office. Ncell was challenging the payment of Rs 62.63 bil­lion in capital gain tax on its buyout deal.

Nepal Communist Party bars its cadres from criticizing its leaders, and for the first time in the country’s history its cabi­net meeting was held through a video conference.

Tuesday, August 27: Chief Ministers of seven provinces express dissatisfaction over the tourism ministry’s preparations for Visit Nepal Year 2020.

Wednesday, August 28: Nepal Army says it will complete the Kathmandu-Nijgadh fast-track within the next three and a half years.

Thursday, August 29: The government tables the contro­versial Media Council Bill in the National Assembly. Ruling Nepal Communist Party has pledged to amend its contro­versial provisions as per the agreement with the Federation of Nepali Journalists.

Nepal Airlines’ A330 wide-body completes its maiden flight to Osaka, Japan. The airlines will fly to Osaka three times a week

 Public dissatisfaction with the government seems to be grow­ing, as has been expressed in pro­tests over multiple issues. How do you see this phenomenon?

This is not something that hap­pens overnight. First, the country has never had a government that people fully owned. For the Ranas, family was the priority. The brief democratic period between 1950 and 1960 was soon undone in a coup. The Panchayat regime was only for royalists and a small coterie. Those who opposed the regime were portrayed as anti-national forces, so it was not a government of all. After the political change in 1990, people had expected such tendencies to end. But the governments formed after 1990 were those of political parties and not everybody felt own­ership. In recent days, governments have come to be confined to factions within parties. Till date, this nation has not had a government of Nepal.

There are quick political changes because people have certain expec­tations. If those expectations are not met, they support various polit­ical movements and the changes that those movements bring about. The goal is to end past bad prac­tices and start good governance. But subsequent political develop­ments could meet people’s expec­tations. Our transitional period was prolonged, and anarchism, indis­cipline, and widespread impunity took root. People tolerated those things during the transition. But when elections took place, Nepali people acted smart. They aspired for a strong government and gave an overwhelming mandate to a party. There were expectations that the strong government could take any decision in favor of the country and all its citizens, even by taking risks.

The barriers to development have been identified. Everybody knows the problems in the functioning of parties. There were expectations that the government would address those issues in its five year tenure, that it would build necessary insti­tutions, replace obsolete ones, and create an environment for good gov­ernance. In the initial days, the gov­ernment instilled some hope, such as by getting rid of syndicates in the transport sector. People supported the government in this. But public trust gradually eroded. On the one hand we have a habit of seeking immediate changes. On the other, the functioning of the government created frustrations.

The level of frustration is high even among party cadres. In this scenario, if someone tries to do a small thing, people support it. The case of Rabi Lamichhane is a case in point. He raised some governance issues and people supported him. In a nutshell, despite the change in system, the characters remained the same and there was no change in their working style. All these things have contributed to public dissatis­faction.

What do you think forces people to abandon personal comforts and come out on the streets?

There are multiple factors. The first is related to our political affil­iation. We are blind supporters of political parties and we are paying a price. Second, it is about caus­es. If someone comes up with a new cause, people support them, hoping they would bring about a transformation. Third, there is dis­satisfaction due to bad governance, and if someone shows something positive, the masses follow. Another fundamental issue is that all Nepalis are yet to own this country fully. So if someone sees some opportunity they join a protest to express dis­content. The groups that were mar­ginalized yesterday have their own beliefs and values. There also are forces that have raised arms against the current system. When they get a chance, those forces come togeth­er. Plus, cadres of political parties whose duty is to create a positive environment remain silent and they are also likely to join those outside forces to vent their frustrations.

Don’t the protests in the case of Nirmala Panta and Rabi Lamich­hane suggest people do not trust the police and the judiciary?

The central issue is the erosion of politics. Now there is a big question mark on the integrity of institutions such as the judiciary, parliament, constitutional bodies and security agencies. People doubt the system can work independently. The inci­dents you point out are related to trust in institutions. People do not believe that the system works prop­erly. They think the system may do wrong and they should exert pres­sure on these institutions. There is political intervention at all levels so there is no firm belief in institutions.

How do you see the unfolding of the case involving Rabi Lamich­hane on social media?

Technology is both a blessing and a curse. It is contributing to social awareness. Due to social media, even people from far-flung areas are politically empowered. On the negative side, various studies have shown that around 70 percent people who have smartphones use social media, and 60 percent of those users believe what appears on social media. Users have failed to understand the basics of social media. We do not have sufficient capacity to revisit the content on social media. Similarly, there is a tendency on social media that we are free to do anything we want. There is some anarchy. Now, our challenge at this point is to edu­cate people about the use of social media.

Do you advocate imposing cen­sorship on social media to make it more disciplined?

Instead of censorship, we should focus on the best use of social media. Compared to other countries, we are still liberal when it comes to our social media rights but we also have to think about controlling the anarchy therein. We should retain the positive aspects of social media while discouraging fake and mali­cious content.

Is there a successful model of social media regulation abroad which can be replicated in Nepal?

In advanced countries, measures are being taken to make platforms accountable. If there are some objectionable contents, Facebook and Twitter are made accountable instead of punishing users who post such contents. There are measures like redirecting, deleting and sus­pending those contents. In third-world countries, we cannot enforce such measures. Even if Facebook is banned in Nepal, there will be no big impact on its revenue but if it is banned in America and other devel­oped countries, its revenue will be hit badly. But there are other ways to make social media accountable. In Nepal, there is a tendency of attacking individual users. We need to educate the people. Digital litera­cy should be our priority.

There are new attempts to con­trol the media and other state organs. Many reckon the commu­nist government is out to impose a totalitarian system.

In my understanding, the current government is not communist. They claim to be communists to lure vot­ers but in practice, they are not. But there is a big segment in the country that cannot easily digest communism. In the constitution, we have mentioned socialism but it has not been properly defined. There is a government with a two-third majority which is capable of amend­ing the charter, and there is a fear this government could turn author­itarian. Next, there is a problem in its working style. There should be sufficient consultations with stake­holders before introducing import­ant measures. The process is not consultative and transparent. Third, the way our ministers disseminate their message is problematic. There is little transparency and communi­cation is faulty.

You’ve said there is a political upheaval in Nepal every 10 years or so. Do you see any possibili­ty of a complete reversal of the current political system anytime soon?

I am studying the basic character of this country and mentality of Nepali people. As public expecta­tions have not been met, frustration has grown. I do not see the possi­bility of immediate change but we cannot rule out such circumstances in some years.

In the nation-building process, we constituted a Constituent Assembly. In the initial phase of constitution drafting, we adopted a participato­ry process. But when we collected people’s feedback, we did not pay heed to them. During constitution drafting, there was no clause-wise discussion as mentioned in the CA procedures, and cross-party law­makers were forced to withdraw their amendment bills.

They were not given time to speak. A few leaders dictated the process and took decisions and now we are witnessing the consequences. Due to the flawed process, dissatisfaction of people continues to increase. A section of the population was of the view that there should be a ref­erendum on monarchy. That view was given short shrift. The rights of the monarchy were stripped before the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. If the current political leadership realizes that there has been a mistake and commits not to repeat them, people will still give it time to do good. But first the leader­ship has to accept its mistakes.

The government has a five-year mandate but it is limiting dem­ocratic space through new leg­islations.

Our fundamental character is that people stick to their party during elections even if they are not sat­isfied with the party. The swing population is small. Our future will depend on whether there will be a sizable swing population. Four par­ties hold majority votes. Also, there is democracy in our blood. People do not easily tolerate attempts to curtail democratic rights. However, the decay of the four major parties is rapid. They are being alienated from the society and dissatisfaction is rising. There are indications that parties may not be able to retain their votes. I am still not clear who will benefit from the degeneration of these political parties.

Lastly, how do you see the func­tioning of the parliament in Nepal?

The problem right now is we made political parties very powerful, and so we suffer. In our context, political parties became strong everywhere, damaging the system. The parlia­ment is mandated to make all state machinery accountable but in our case the parliament remains the weakest of the three state organs. We have to revisit certain things to make the parliament strong. The parliament should be a center of excellence. First, our lawmakers, instead of being nationally-minded, are constituency-specific. They have a mentality of winning elections at any cost. Lawmakers struggle to be ministers to develop their constitu­ency. See what the prime minister is doing in Damak, Jhapa. So, we have to revisit the current electoral system. The election has become costly and genuine politicians can­not fight them. Elections are in the hands of criminals as they have all the money.

Power is concentrated in the hands of non-state actors. We exer­cise our sovereign rights through our lawmakers but the sovereign powers of the parliament are being exercised by the leaders of four or five parties. Whatever leaders say goes; the voices in the parliament are not heard. The current whip system in the parliament should be revisited. Except when a no-confi­dence motion is registered against the PM, there should be no whip. That would allow the parliament to function independently. Another major factor is that ministers are selected from the parliament. Law­makers run after leaders seeking ministerial positions. This means lawmakers are losing their author­ity. Therefore, lawmakers should perform legislative work and make government accountable. Their focus should be on how to make the best legislation. Ministers should be selected from among technocrats who have knowledge of their field and who can govern on the basis of their expertise.