Submit your Article

How do you evaluate the role of the parliament?

The parliament adheres to certain ideals and principles. The chamber is also involved in knowledge-oriented tasks which should be implemented. Therefore, the parliamentarians have a big role. Among others, the parliament is an institution that holds the government to account. It represents people’s wishes and aspirations, along with its other duties like promulgation of laws and endorsing government’s policy/program. Unlike other state institutions, the parliament has people’s seal.

How can we enhance the role of the parliament in Nepal?

First, the political parties should themselves initiate these steps. But they have their own difficulties and limitations. Political parties select candidates who have the greatest prospect of winning elections as they need sufficient numbers to form government. But they should also select candidates who can enhance the quality of the parliament. At the same time, the candidate selection process should be representative and inclusive. The candidates should be qualified too. In some countries, electoral candidates should have at least a Bachelors degree. In our case, such provisions are not taken seriously.

Who is responsible for training and providing knowledge to lawmakers as many of them are new?

The parties have not realized the importance of an institution which can train lawmakers and impart them with knowledge about parliamentary proceedings. I had initiated the process in 1990 but I did not get any government support. We need a parliamentary center to orient lawmakers on various aspects. For the new lawmakers, training is necessary. How to ask questions in parliament? What type of questions to ask? What decorum to follow? These things matter. Many new lawmakers of the federal parliament have no idea on these issues and they hesitate to ask questions. 

How do you evaluate the role of parliamentary committees? Many of their recent directives to the government have been controversial.

In parliamentary practice, the committees are considered mini-parliaments and they have their own jurisdictions and mandates. But most parliamentary committees are unaware of their actual jurisdictions. Recently, the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee directed a minister to implement its decision but the minister refused to do so. This happened due to lack of knowledge on the part of both the committee and the minister. The committees can give the government suggestions on various matters but it is not their duty to take a final call. Ministers need not do exactly as instructed by the parliamentary committees.

But the recommendations of parliamentary committees are obligatory on the government, are they not?

This is true in principle. But if the government does not take it as an obligation, what can we do? The committees can ask the government to implement their decisions but the parliamentary committees themselves are not executioners. In our case, committees are saying that the government must implement their decisions. In reality, the committees only make recommendations. It is the speaker who should ask the government to implement all the parliament’s decisions. 

After the formation of the two-third Nepal Communist Party-led government, there are reports that the government is trying to influence parliamentary proceedings.

It seems so due to the overwhelming majority of the ruling Nepal Communist Party in the federal parliament. This is not a balanced parliament. If the opposition strength was close to a majority, there would be a balance. Now, the ruling party has an overwhelming majority, while the opposition is far behind in terms of numerical strength. The performance of parliament depends on its composition.  The ruling parties have sufficient majority in all federal and provincial parliaments so there have not been sufficient discussions on several bills. That is why committees are not functioning effectively. On the other hand, the opposition is not dedicated to removing flawed provisions of such bills. The opposition lives with the mentality that as the ruling party has sufficient numbers, it will somehow or other pass just about any bill.

It means the role of the opposition parties has not been satisfactory?

In this scenario, opposition parties should fight in parliamentary committees. When it comes to the content of various bills, ruling party lawmakers are not bothered as they believe any bill tabled by the two-third government will ultimately be endorsed. There is thus carelessness in law-making, a level of anarchy. Parliamentarians should work in the larger interest of people instead of vested interests of political parties. The law prevails upon every citizen. Close scrutiny of all bills should be done at the committee level because that is not possible in full parliament sessions. Similarly, there are only a handful of lawmakers with in-depth knowledge of vital issues. Therefore committees should invite experts to solicit their views on specific topics.

Opposition parties complain that current speaker of the federal parliament, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, is partial and always siding with the ruling parties.

The role of the speaker depends on the composition of parliament. There are two types of speakers. The first type shows an interest in chairing the parliamentary sessions because it is a high constitutional post. The second type seeks to genuinely increase the role of parliament. The second type is more dedicated in maintaining parliamentary values, to give a message to the government that it is obliged to the parliament. The speaker should instill on the prime minister and ministers that they are answerable to parliament. The ministers should be present on time, they should speak on time, and maintain decorum, and the speaker should ensure this. But if there is overwhelming majority of one party, the party naturally expects the speaker to take its side.

Specifically, how do you evaluate the performance of Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara?

Mahara does not have a strong willpower to undertake the responsibilities of a speaker. In 1990s, when Girija Prasad Koirala had offered me to pick whatever ministerial portfolio I preferred, I informed him that I would remain in parliament. After my firm stance, he offered me the position of speaker. Some people come with a firm commitment of becoming the speaker of parliament. Some people go there thinking it is a constitutional and dignified position and I should be there. For example, when NC was in the opposition, Ram Chandra Poudel was chosen as the speaker simply because he could then occupy a high post. Many people take my reference as an ideal speaker because I wanted to be a speaker and I acted like a speaker.

Do you mean Mahara only wants to occupy a high position?

He feels that the party instructed him to occupy the chair. His party has an overwhelming majority in parliament and ruling party leaders take his pro-government line for granted. But it is also incumbent upon the speaker to give enough space to opposition parties, even if they are in a minority. He or she has to meet the expectation of opposition parties. At the same time, the speaker has to keep the government from taking arbitrary decisions. I do not see that Mahara enjoying the office, perhaps because he has already occupied the post of deputy prime minister.

In Nepal, there is tendency of obstructing parliament for months on end. What is the international practice?

People elect MPs to do their jobs. The opposition parties’ duty is to register their protest, not stop parliamentary proceedings for a long time. Sometimes, to increase pressure, there could be some disturbance in parliament. But indefinite protest is tantamount to disregarding people’s mandate. Let’s take a recent example. There was no need to obstruct the parliament to ask for a parliamentary investigation into two suspected extra-judicial killings. From human rights perspective, it was a genuine demand. But at what cost?

Is this also indicative of a very weak opposition?

Yes, the role of the opposition parties is weak. The ruling parties have this tendency of neglecting bypassing the opposition with a view that it has a clear majority. This tendency also forced the opposition parties to obstruct parliament because they too wanted to show their strength. But in this period the parliament was totally dysfunctional. The parliament was closed at the time when there were floods and landslides. Several bills could have been discussed and endorsed in this time. Minimum protest is justified but we have to develop a culture of protest without sacrificing the sanctity of the parliament.

Sonakshi Sinha-starrer ‘Khandaani Shafakhana’ would be a much better film had the runtime been, say, 90 minutes, instead of the 136 minutes it actually is. Nothing wrong with the story. Sinha plays Babita ‘Baby’ Bedi, a young woman who has inherited an old Unani medical dispensary from her deceased uncle, Mamaji (Kulbhushan Kharbanda). The problem is that it’s a sex clinic, and Baby won’t be able to make it her own unless she runs it for six months, as stipulated in Mamaji’s will. A young woman running a sex clinic in the heart of the conservative Punjabi heartland is problematic on multiple fronts.

Marketed as the ‘the only sex film for the whole family’, the film takes up a delicate subject, which is still a taboo in many parts of South Asia. Mamaji was himself shunned by the Unani medical community for bringing the fraternity into disrepute by running a sex clinic. Twenty years later, when Baby wants to run it, she is shunned and shamed as well.

At the start, Baby is only interested in completing the six months so that she can legally inherit the clinic and be able to sell it: Her indebted family desperately needs the money. But in time she comes to realize that Mamaji, instead of being someone of disrepute, had actually helped countless couples to lead happy conjugal lives by improving their sex lives. And the realization that Mamaji trusted Baby, and no one else, to look after the clinic, also makes her consider keeping it.

‘Khandaani Shafakhana’ is a lighthearted comedy and fun to watch in bits and pieces. It also makes a strong case for sex education for youngsters and opening up about sex to bring it out of the closet. Baby’s struggle as a medical representative, her light-hearted riff with her brother Bhooshit (Barun Sharma), the weird complaints Baby’s patients come up with—all add a humorous touch. The rapper Badshah, who plays a Punjabi singing heartthrob, looks the part as well.

So what is wrong with the film? First, it is a touch too slow. Second, without giving away the plot, parts of it are unconvincing: everything happens so fast that events often seem unbelievable. Sinha is brilliant in her role. But for a mainstream Bollywood movie, the weight is too much for her to carry alone. A promising plot thus underwhelms.

The good bit is the film’s contribution to making sex less of a taboo in this part of the world. In this, the movie, again, largely succeeds. It also breaks the stereotype of males as family’s breadwinners in traditional India.

If that was the sole expectation of the film production team, they have succeeded. But if they wanted to make a fun movie and mint some money out of it, we are afraid they have won’t get far. People go to Bollywood films with certain expectations, and Khandani Shafakhakhana fails to live up to them.

Who should watch it?:

If you are parents of young children, this film offers the most gentle lesson possible on the birds and the bees. You will also enjoy it if you like women-centric cinema. But it’s a little slow and for the important message it wants to deliver, not always believable.

Movie: Khandaani Shafakhana

Genre: Comedy

Actors: Sonakshi Sinha, Badshah, Varun Sharma, Annu Kapoor, Kulbhushan Kharbanda

Director: Shilpi Dasgupta

Runtime: 136 minutes

Rating: 3 stars

1) What is a movie you wish you were cast in?

The movie ‘Junge’ and in the role played by the respected Suraj Singh Thakuri dai.

2) What is your biggest pet peeve?

People misusing words.

3) Two things you love about being an actor?

Support from my fans and the different characters I get to play in movies.

4) A Nepali celebrity you admire and why?

Rajesh Hamal. He is a legend.

5) Do you like modeling or acting more?

I would say I like both. I started my career with modeling, and acting has always been my passion.

6) A movie that has stuck with you?

None.

7) Three important things that are important for a good film?

Content, good direction, and a great team.

8) Most special thing a fan has ever done for you?

All my fans are equally important to me.

9) An advice you would like to give to upcoming actors?

Never give up because everyone has to go through tough times, and struggle at the start. If you believe in yourself, you will reach your destiny and achieve success.

10) What would be your superpower?

Multitasking, haha.

The Nepali Congress and the RJPN, the two main opposition forces in the federal House of Representatives, have been obstructing the parliament since July 9. They want answers to the ‘extrajudicial killings’ of Biplob-led CPN cadre Kumar Poudel (whom the police supposedly killed in a shoot-out) and RJPN’s Saroj Narayan Singh (who was killed in police firing following a violent protest). Both these incidents took place in Sarlahi district. There are discrepancies in the police account of Poudel’s death, and some evidence that he was killed in cold blood. Likewise, the police arguably used excess force in quelling the riot in which Singh lost his life.

No doubt these are important concerns. But there is also a self-serving streak to this NC-led house obstruction. Following the restoration of democracy in 1990, the Congress used to complain about the ‘undemocratic’ practice of the then CPN-UML to repeatedly obstruct the house. (In 2000, the UML had obstructed the lower house for 57 days in a row.) But now that the Congress is in the opposition, it is doing the same thing, and it is the former UML party members who complain of the ‘undemocratic’ nature of the Congress. In reality, in the nearly three decades of post-1990 democratic practice, none of our major political parties has been serious about upholding the sanctity of the legislature.

Typically, important decisions are taken behind closed doors by a small coterie of top party leaders, and the parliament is used only to rubberstamp their decisions. Interestingly, only when the opposition has to obstruct the house do their MPs bother to turn up. On most other days, the parliament is deserted, with not even a third of the MPs in attendance. And nearly all the top leaders and ministers are missing as well. In fact, in the broader public imagination, the parliament has been reduced to a venue where there is unanimous agreement on perks and privileges for the MPs—and on little else.

But the parliament is where people’s chosen representatives discuss the problems and concerns of their constituencies. These may be related to lack of drinking water, a faulty transmission line that is disrupting electricity, or a patchy bit of road that is hindering transport—the issues of real concern for most folks. By sidelining these issues our MPs are also abdicating their core responsibility.

 How would you characterize the current state of identity politics in Nepal?

Identity politics is a condescend­ing and patronizing term. It is not just about identity but also about equality, social justice and cultural rights. When you put all that togeth­er, it becomes dignity politics. By the way, dignity politics is not my term; this is a term Dr BR Ambedkar preferred. He said that for the Dalits the problem is with identity itself. So, it has to be dignity politics. In the same way, whether you call them Madhesi or Marsiha, the state does recognize their identity; it is dignity it does not give. It is about assertion of dignity and politics of dignity.

Unfortunately, power holders still dismiss the aspiration of dignity as identity politics. We are sometimes very condescending— that we are all Nepalis, that there are no differenc­es, and that in the eyes of the consti­tution everybody is equal. So dignity politics has not moved forward by an inch since the divisive constitu­tion was promulgated, which I keep saying was written not with ink but with the blood of Madhesi people.

Do you believe the practitioners of politics of dignity, for example the Madhesi parties, really want to bring about a social transfor­mation or are they using it only as a tool of power?

The moment you talk of political parties, their only means of estab­lishing dignity is by getting into pow­er. So it would be naïve to dismiss political parties for seeking power. Anybody who opens a political party has the ambition of getting into pow­er and implementing their agenda. But due to the ethno-national feel­ings in Nepal, it is not possible for a minority to exercise power. Even if they get into the government, they don’t have the power to implement their agenda.

Suppose they become ministers, then secretaries will drive them; sometimes even the peon has more say than a minister. Our ethno-na­tional establishment does not rec­ognize the existence of dominated groups in power structures.

From a theoretical standpoint, political parties have not lost their faith in this political process. So Upendra Yadav’s party stays in the government, agitates, stakes its claim, and waits for the right moment. They are playing a waiting game. When you are just waiting, it is better to be in the government than be outside and dismissed as an ineffectual opposition.

So in your view Upendra Yadav is doing the right thing by not quitting the government?

He hardly has any other option. It is easy for me to dismiss him as someone who has compromised his agenda and become part of the government. Once he was forced to accept this divisive constitution, once he was bound by circumstanc­es to take part in the elections, once he was elected, the choice was to join the government and take some of its benefits or just be on the road and keep agitating. You can be agitating for a long-long time. For instance, the Nepali Congress stayed in agitation mode for 30 years before it came to power. Now, the Marxist-Leninists, after deciding to join the political mainstream in the 1980s, have become part of the establishment and captured the entire system. There is hardly any difference between them in terms of ideology. Upendra Yadav comes from a Marxist-Leninist schooling, which has taught him not to stay outside but to use the system to change it from within.

The next set of elections are still years away. Nor does there seem to be a conducive environment for another movement in Mad­hes. Couldn’t these be the rea­sons behind Yadav’s reluctance to quit the government?

That again would be very simplis­tic because elections or changes in government can happen suddenly. After the 1991 elections, Girija Prasad Koirala had a comfortable majority but mid-term elections took place. In a transitional democracy, you cannot completely predict when elections are held. So elections, or something other than elections, can happen. I think the main question for Yadav is if he should prepare for a movement from inside the gov­ernment or from outside. If it is a mass party organizing a mass move­ment, being outside the government is more fruitful. But if it is a cad­re-based movement, experiences have shown, be it with BJP of India or UML of Nepal, that infiltrating the government proves to be a more effective strategy. Yadav’s political schooling is in cadre-based politics and he cannot think beyond that.

With Yadav in power, RJPN not being in a position to mount enough street pressure and CK Raut joining mainstream poli­tics, what is the state of Madhesi politics right now?

You do not see the fire now, but there is some smoke. And it is spread­ing from inside. Political movements are eruptions. When you have reg­ular eruptions, the volcano is not very big. Same with earthquakes. Scientists say if you have smaller earthquakes that means the ground is adjusting itself. If there is no quake for many years, you are waiting for a big one. Madhes seems to be waiting for the big one.

Who do you think is going to lead the next Madhes movement?

Nobody knows that. Who knew Madan Bhandari would lead UML after 1990? No one had heard his name. NC leaders were saying from Tundikhel that these rats had come out of their holes after there was democracy. People’s movements throw up their own leaders. In cad­re-based movements, leaders give ideology, build organizations, send cadres to the ground, who in turn mobilize people. The cadre-based movement we saw during the third Madhesi uprising in 2015-16 was a failure. This was unlike the two pre­vious Madhesi uprisings which were essentially people’s movements.

Cadre-based movements work when the policemen are yours, the teachers are yours, the CDOs are yours, and the judges are yours. They work because everybody has a relative in the establishment. The protestors are then heard. But when completely externalized groups like Madhesis who have almost nobody in the system erupt, this cadre-based system does not work. We saw in the third Madhes uprising how the police were happy to shoot protes­tors in the head and chest.

What is the level of trust between the Madhes-based parties and the Madhesi people?

It is deteriorating fast. After Bedananda Jha was taken up by the Panchayat establishment, he lost the trust of the people. Gajendra Narayan Singh went and took the oath of minister in labeda suruwal and people stopped believing in the Sadbhawana party. Upendra Yadav has become a minister and people have started losing trust in him. The same with the RJPN. But so long as the agenda is alive, we only have to wait for the next set of leaders.

What was the reaction of com­mon Madhesis when CK Raut decided to join peaceful politics? Was there a sense of resignation?

Raut was blown out of proportion by Kathmandu’s Khas Arya media. He never had mass support, only cadre support, especially among the 18-25 group. Among them, the educated have already left the coun­try, and the under-educated have also left for West Asia and Malay­sia. What I call the ‘half-educated crowd’ has a very romantic idea of creating a new country out of nowhere, as did the likes of Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose in India. This kind of romantic idealism is always very vocal, very visible, and somewhat tech-savvy, but never very big.

But even in that small crowd, those that Dr Raut carefully culti­vated remain with him. But others are unhappy and abandoning him. Some naïve people who thought of Dr Raut as a savior felt let down. But Raut was always a marginal player.

Do you see any possibility of the constitution being amended any time soon?

No is the short answer.

Is that because the Madhesi par­ties do not have the power or is there no willingness on the part of the NCP and Congress to do so?

Both. The Nepali Congress and the NCP have this hubris that if the Shahs could keep the Madhesis down for 200 years, if the Ranas could keep them down for 104 years, there is no reason why they too should not be able to forever keep the Madhesis down in the name of republicanism and federalism. Their support base is mid-hill Khas Aryas and some Gorkhalis who have been made honorary Khas. They are very happy with the state of things. They have a kind of triumphalism—that we should show Madhesis who this country belongs to. So the Congress and the NCP are in no mood to cede an inch; and there is no longer a Madhesi party in the country, all are nationalist parties. Those parties that have Madhes as their primary constituency seem to have accept­ed that they have been defeated roundly. This country is waiting for new forces to emerge, new equa­tions, which may take some time, but it will happen. The only way 30 percent people will continue ruling over the remaining 70 percent is through the barrel of a gun. There is no other means.

You don’t seem to like the term identity politics. If so, can there be a common front among the defenders of politics of dignity?

No, it is wrong to say I do not like identity politics. It is just that I understand it differently. Identity politics is always the currency of the dominant community. So Nepal has dominant Khas Arya identity poli­tics, i.e. Nepali jaati, Nepali gaurab. For the minority and dominated groups, it is dignity politics. You must be aware Khas Arya is the only community defined in the constitu­tion. For others, even chief district officers have the right to define who is a Madhesi or who is a Janajati. For Khas Arya, nothing less than the constitution will do. Now the chal­lenge for the dominated groups is, can they come together and formu­late a kind of inclusive participatory identity which will establish the pol­itics of dignity where each identity would be reflected? That is a long journey. This is a new vocabulary. Old political parties are ill-prepared to face new ideologies.

Do you have a roadmap for build­ing a more inclusive society?

If I had a roadmap I would have been in the place of Pushpa Kamal Dahal or CK Raut. People keeping asking me why I don’t take up lead­ership. I can diagnose. But to pre­scribe, you need a certain kind of a gambler’s spirit and I do not have that. And I do not want to play with the lives of the people. I would rath­er wait for things to evolve. I believe in making people capable of taking their own decisions. Once a critical mass of such people is prepared, then the quality of leadership natu­rally improves.

Recently there was widespread flooding in Madhes, in which many died. Who did common Madhesis blame for the death and destruction?

Everybody knows provincial gov­ernments have no power. Those ministers ride cars and go around. That’s it. As far as the local bod­ies are concerned, these people have spent millions to become ward chairs and chairmen and vice-chair­men in rural municipalities. So they are out to recoup their money. The Madhesi people never had any hope from the central government, which they see as being comprised of alien rulers. They thought they would continue to endure the hardships, as they always have. 

 Education Park has been nominated for ‘The PIEoneer Edu­cation Agency of the Year 2019’ award, one of the most prestigious in the education sec­tor across the world. This is a big achieve­ment not only for Educa­tion Park but for the whole international education agency sector of Nepal, a press release issued by the company said. Along with Education Park, six other education agencies across the globe have been nominated for this award being felicitated by The PIE. This is an indepen­dent media, recruitment and events company con­necting global community of professionals working in international education. This year awards are being distributed in 16 different categories at a ceremony in the Guild Hall, London, on September 19.  

 The Farmer’s Market at Le Sherpa (FMLS), the oldest and leading farmer’s mar­ket in the city, this week announced a major step towards its goal of banning all single-use plastic by the end of the year. The FMLS announced a partnership with Plastic-Free Himalayas (PFH), a local organization, to devise an education, incen­tive, and control process for its vendors and customers. Starting this week, each ven­dor is required to display a plaque provided and moni­tored by PFH to identify their level of adherence to the plas­tic-free campaign.  

 NMB Bank has launched its new corporate campaign themed “We see endless opportunities” as it looks to position itself as a bank with a difference. The goal is to walk on its guiding philos­ophy of ‘Sustainable and Value Based Banking’. The theme goads one to see beyond the obvious, an NMB press statement reads. It seeks to instill a sense of con­fidence that the bank is there to support harnessing of the coun­try’s immense resources to help the common man succeed.