Submit your Article

The May 17 merger between the CPN-UML and the CPN (Mao­ist Center) is undoubtedly a momentous occasion in Nepali polit­ical history. The communist behe­moth that is the combined Nepal Communist Party now commands a near two-thirds majority in the federal parliament, and heads six of the seven provincial governments. Never before has a political party of any stripe so completely dominated national polity. Nor in the democrat­ic history of Nepal has there been a prime minister as strong as KP Sharma Oli. The left unity, which had been in the works for the past six months, has generated a lot of hope. Barring a political earthquake, the left gov­ernment will serve out its five-year term, which is again something that has never happened before. Econ­omists have repeatedly blamed the political instability of the post-1990 political set-up as a major hurdle to the country’s development and to the economic empowerment of its people. The hope now is that prosperity will follow a stable polity.

Yet there are grave fears over the left unity. The biggest of them is that the ruling party, in its seemingly single-minded focus on develop­ment and prosperity, could curtail democratic freedoms and intimi­date opposing voices, perhaps to build a ‘communist utopia’ in due course. Presently, the only other country to have an elected commu­nist government, Cambodia, is only nominally democratic. Its prime minister, Hun Sen, has continuously been in office for 33 years, making him the longest-serving prime min­ister in world history.

Single-party corporatism

Asked why the two big commu­nist parties in Nepal came together, political commentator Krishna Kha­nal bluntly replies, “To maintain a stranglehold on power”. Were that not the case, he asks, “why is the Nepal Communist Party trying to enlist other smaller parties in the government, when it already has a comfortable majority?”

Khanal likens the left merger to trying to establish a “single-party corporatism”. He finds it troubling that the media, which is itself corpo­ratized, is blindly supporting the left unity, when what it should be doing is critically questioning the rationale for the merger.

Nilamber Acharya, another polit­ical analyst, is more sanguine. “The unity will end the unhealthy competition among the political parties to get into govern­ment. Now the only way for the opposition parties to get back to power is by going to the people for a fresh mandate, which is how it should be in a democracy,” he says.

But doesn’t he fear the risks asso­ciated with an all-powerful ruling party and an emasculated oppo­sition? “Look, the opposition, by definition, is in a minority. Its strength depends not on the num­ber of its MPs but on the kinds of issues it raises. The onus is now on the opposition parties to regain public faith by raising pro-people issues,” Acharya says.

Senior Nepali Congress leader Ram Saran Mahat, for his part, fore­sees risks as well as benefits of the left unity. “One hopes that with a strong government, there will now be policy continuity and timely deci­sion-making, both of which were missing during the terms of pre­vious, unstable coalition govern­ments,” Mahat says.

Many plans, zero programs

Yet Mahat also sees some alarming signs. “On the economic front, this government is distribution-orient­ed rather than focused on increas­ing our capital base. Such distri­bution-oriented programs could ultimately bankrupt the country.”

Mahat is also uncomfortable with the centralization of powers in the PMO. “The prime minister should be providing overall vision and leadership, not busy himself with every little operational detail. I suspect the current government has authoritar­ian tendencies.”

Economist Biswo Poudel espies lack of clarity on the priorities of the new party and the government. “The government, for instance, says it will offer loans to industries and hydro projects at subsidized rates. But to get those loans the industries will have to pay hefty bribes, which negates the benefits of the subsi­dized loans.”

And what did Poudel make of the government’s Policies and Pro­grams announced in the run-up to this year’s national budget. “Frank­ly, its garbage. It’s all policies, but no programs. It talks of big dreams but offers little in terms of how to realize them.”

But won’t political stability in itself contribute to the country’s prosperity? “Not necessarily,” Pou­del argues. “If political stability were enough, the 30 years of Panchayat rule would have transformed the country,” he says.

Krishna Khanal also points to the potential for abuse of ‘democratic centrism’, one of the guiding prin­ciples of the new party. “In this system, once the party leadership makes a decision, it is binding upon all party members. Lenin used this princi­ple to sideline Trotsky. In other words, democratic cen­tralism can be used to sideline alternative voices in the party.”

Khanal believes the left unity gov­ernment has achieved precious little in its nearly 100 days in office, and thus has already failed to honor its mandate. Nilamber Acharya dis­agrees. “The biggest achievement of the first 100 days is the left unity itself—for it will have far-reaching impacts on the country. Now that the unification is done and dusted, the government can focus on other important things,” he says.

Biased against Madhes

Ram Saran Mahat also questions the new party’s adoption of demo­cratic centralism. He reckons dem­ocratic centralism is directly against the spirit of the new egalitarian constitution. But while he criticiz­es the government, the Congress leader also vows to play the role of a responsible and effective oppo­sition, “much like we did during the nine months of the Manmohan Adhikari government in 1995, when Nepali Congress helped rein in its populist programs.”

Veteran Madhesi journalist Rajesh Ahiraj questions if the ruling com­munist party can give society a pos­itive direction. “The authoritarian tendencies it has displayed in its short existence could ultimately fuel secessionism in parts of Nepal,” he cautions. Why, for instance, was the chief minister of Province 2 prevent­ed from visiting the US, he asks?

Ahiraj says the new party’s lead­ership is not inclusive; there is not a single Madhesi in its nine-member top brass, “which will only add to the old fear among the Madhesi people that KP Oli and company are somehow anti-Madhes.”

From all these observations it becomes clear that the biggest chal­lenge for the Nepal Communist Par­ty will be to prove that it is commit­ted to democratic values and that it will embrace all Nepalis, irrespec­tive of their color or place of origin.

As Nilamber Acharya says, ulti­mately, the left government will be judged on the basis of its action. “Frankly, I don’t see a danger of authoritarianism lurking in this part of the world. What I fear more is that our rulers have not learned anything from their past mistakes.”

The May 17 unification between the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center) has resulted in the formation of a behemoth of a ruling party, which commands a near two-thirds majority in the federal parliament, and heads six of the seven provincial governments. Never before has a political party so completely dominated national polity. Understandably, the formation of Nepal Communist Party has generated a lot of hope. Economists blame the post-1990 political instability as a major hurdle to the country’s development and to the economic empowerment of its people. The hope now is that prosperity will follow a stable polity.

Yet there are fears. Some reckon the ruling party could curtail democratic freedoms and cow opposing voices. Political commentator Krishna Khanal says the rationale for the left merger is their leaders’ desire to “maintain a strangle-hold on power”. Nilamber Acharya, another political analyst, is more sanguine. He thinks the unity will end the unhealthy competition among the political parties to get into government.

The ‘non-inclusive’ nature of the new party hierarchy has also come under criticism. “The authoritarian tendencies it has displayed in its short existence could ultimately fuel secessionism in parts of Nepal,” Madhesi journalist Rajesh Ahiraj cautions.

The success of the new Nepal Communist Party will ultimate depend on its actions, and not on what the prime minister says he will do. One of its biggest challenges will be to convince detractors that what the left leaders are aiming for is not a monolithic ‘communist utopia’ but a flourishing society that respects diversity and protects democratic freedoms.  

Full Story on Sunday..

“On Friday, May 4, she contracted diarrhea, which got worse as the day progressed,” says Dawa Gurung, who was guiding Keith Eraland Jellum (79) and his wife Ann Carol Mc Cormac (71) on their trek to Upper Mustang. “On Satur­day morning, when I went to see her [Mc Cormac], she looked very weak. I imme­diately contacted my travel agency to arrange a helicop­ter rescue.” That was around 8 am. By the time the Simrik Air helicopter reached the res­cue site, it was already 2:15 pm. When the chopper final­ly arrived, Mc Cormac was quickly airlifted to Pokhara and heaved into an ambulance (at 3:10 pm). She was then rushed to the nearby Gandaki Hospital, where she was pro­nounced dead (at 3:45 pm).

It is impossible to say with certainty whether Mc Cormac would have survived had the res­cue helicopter arrived faster. But Dawa reckons she would have recovered because “even on Sat­urday morning she was coherent and could converse normally”.

The obvious question that he and Mc Cormac’s family are asking is: why did the rescue helicopter take so long to arrive?

Chhusang in Upper Mustang, from where the American couple were airlifted to Pokhara, falls in a ‘restricted zone’, which means all the aircraft flying into the area have to get pri­or government permission, even during emergencies. It is a lengthy process. First the relevant trekking agency has to request the aircraft provider, in writing, that a rescue mission be arranged. The helicopter operator then has to make the case with the respective Chief District Officer, following which the CDO faxes a request to the Home Minis­try. By the time the ministry gives its final go-ahead for the airlift, four or five hours of precious time will have been wasted.

Those involved in these rescue missions don’t under­stand why they have to go through the long bureaucratic process when time is of the essence. “Why can’t the CDO, for instance, be given the authority to issue a final permit for an emergency rescue?” asks Prem Thapa, the CEO of Simrik Air.

Just in the past year, a Japanese national died in a restricted area in the Dhaulagiri region while another pregnant woman from a restricted area in Gorkha also lost her life, as the rescue chopper failed to arrive on time in both the cases.

“I don’t understand why the Upper Mustang area has to be placed in a restricted zone at all,” says Sid­dharth Jung Gurung, the pilot of the chopper that had flown to Chhusang to rescue Mc Cormac.

Buddhi Sagar Lamichhane, a joint secretary at the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Avia­tion, informed that the restrictions date from the time of King Mahen­dra, when Nepal government was forced to impose a ‘no fly zone’ in some areas bordering China. This was because at the time the Khampa rebels were using Nepali territory in Mustang to wage a guerrilla war against China, with the help of the arms dropped by CIA aircraft.

“In my view, continued restric­tions, especially in tourist areas like Jomsom and Lo Manthang, no longer make sense. But then the final call is with the Home Ministry,” Lamichhane says.

“Due process has to be fol­lowed,” insists Ram Krishna Subedi, the Home Ministry spokesperson. “We have laws in place for a reason and unless they are changed our hands are tied.”

Asked if following due pro­cess is important even when lives are on the line, Subedi says, “The laws can be mod­ified as per the changing needs. But like I said, until that happens, we are bound to follow a proper paper trail.”

It was this protracted bureaucratic procedure that possibly cost Mc Cor­mac her life.

Siddharth, the heli­copter pilot, says he had a sinking feeling the moment he saw the ail­ing Mc Cormac at the back of his helicopter. “Her mouth was wide open and the husband had started sobbing inconsolably.”

When I called Dawa, the guide, on May 8, three days after Mc Cormac’s death, he hadn’t left the side of Jel­lum, the bereaved husband. They were still in Pokhara. I asked Dawa if I could I speak to Jellum on the phone. He replied that Jellum had a hearing problem and could barely make out what people were saying to him even in person.

Dawa informed me that the cou­ple’s son had landed in Nepal on the same day.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day whis­tle-stop tour of Nepal has created a lot of hoopla. Over the past few weeks an endless stream of op-eds and commen­taries has raised doubts about Modi’s ‘real intent’. Likewise, on the eve of Modi’s visit, the nationalist credentials of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli were questioned, as he had suppos­edly kowtowed before his Indian masters. There may be some substance to these suspicions. But in some ways they are also self-defeating. Whether or not you endorse Oli’s brand of politics, it is hard to deny that no other contemporary prime minister of Nepal has been as articulate in defending Nepal’s interests and in denouncing even a hint of foreign meddling. Oli has made some astute moves too.

For instance, during his last visit to India, “Oli managed to engage Modi on equal terms, reflecting a more confident Nepal,” says Constantino Xavier, a fellow at Carnegie India, a New Delhi-based think-tank. “This was unprecedented in India-Nepal relations, as successive generations of leaders in Kathmandu since 1950 chose one of two extremes with India: they were either subservient or confrontational, neither of which served Nepal’s interest.”

Oli is proving to be a more skilled statesman because he has avoided both these extreme options, says Xavier, who is originally from Portugal. “Oli recognizes that he loses little by playing into Modi’s playbook, giving the Indian leader all the optics and symbolic reverence of bilateral visits, even while he silently keeps developing real connectivity and interde­pendence with China. This is Nepal’s strategic tradition of non-alignment at its best, balancing both India and China.”

These observations of a neutral observer of Nepal-India relations suggest two things. One, Modi and the Indian estab­lishment are keen on improving relations with Nepal after bilateral ties reached their nadir during the blockade. Ahead of the 2019 general elections, they clearly want to show to the Indian public that Modi’s ‘neighborhood first’ policy, if not a complete success, has not been a total failure either.

Two, PM Oli seems to be making genuine effort to establish relations with India on a more equal footing. This means clearly articulating Nepal’s sovereign right to enter into any kind of relation with any country in the world, including China. Perhaps Oli realizes that he is at the fag end of his polit­ical career and as such wants to leave behind a strong legacy. According to his aides, he wants above all to be remembered as the first Nepali leader who had the confidence to negotiate with India as an equal and as a leader who not just talked but actually did something to balance India and China.

When judging Modi’s latest Nepal visit, let us look not only at the agreements that are signed (or not signed). Let us also evaluate it in terms of PM Oli’s long-term strategic vision.

The Nepali state is complicit in the death of stranded trekkers, both Nepalis and foreigners, a number of whom have died due to delayed rescue operations. The latest person to die, and whose life could possibly have been saved, is the 71-year-old American national Ann Carol Mc Cormac. Suffering from acute diarrhea, she breathed her last at a hospital in Pokhara on May 5. She and her husband had to wait for nearly six hours for a rescue helicopter to arrive.  

The helicopter, which would have taken just around 40 minutes to go from Pokhara to Chhusang of Mustang, from where Mc Cormac needed to be rescued, had to wait for hours for an official permit to fly to the ‘restricted zone’. It was a long process. The guide accompanying the American couple first phoned his trekking agency requesting a rescue. The agency contacted the helicopter service provider. The helicopter service provider then had to contact the local CDO. The CDO then faxed a permit to the Home Ministry, which then took another hour to issue to final flying permit.

Asked if Mc Cormac would have survived had the helicopter arrived on time, says Dawa Gurung, the accompanying guide, says she would probably have, as “she was coherent and could converse normally” even on the morning of May 5.

Just this year a Japanese national and a Nepali pregnant woman also died as the rescue helicopters could not fly in the ‘restricted areas’ without official and tardy permits.

Full story HERE...

It has been over two and a half months since CPN-UML Chair­man KP Sharma Oli became the country’s prime minister for the second time, following a thumping victory of his left alliance in last year’s elections. Soon after assum­ing office, he cobbled together a lean cabinet, comprised of relative­ly clean figures like Lal Babu Pan­dit and Gokarna Bista who have a proven record in government. Oli then brought important state organs like the Department of Mon­ey Laundering Investigation and the National Investigation Depart­ment under the direct purview of the PMO, apparently to make them more effective. His recent crack­down on cartels and syndicates of various hues has also been widely hailed. Moreover, there are signs that his dream of connecting Nepal with India and China through rail­ways could also materialize soon.

But despite such promising sig­nals, there is a lot of skepticism about the new prime minister’s intent. “Prime Minister Oli seems to be in a mood to centralize powers, which is antithetical to the spirit of federalism,” says Ujjwal Prasai, a writer. “He is using public support to strengthen himself, which is no different from what the Panchayat rulers used to do.”

Prasai points out how even the party-less Panchayat had survived for 30 years, as it enjoyed “a degree of public support”. In following a “tried and tested” method of cen­tralized governance, Prasai thinks PM Oli is taking the country on a dangerous path. “If there is one lesson of our failed experiment with Panchayat, it is that develop­ment is possible only with broad public participation in deci­sion-making.”

Words are not enough

Suman Dahal, a lecturer at Apex College in Old Banesh­wor, also sees a troubling pat­tern in how Oli is governing. “We hear the prime minister making big announcements. He says he will bring railways from India and Chi­na. He says he will end the reign of syndicates. But how do we know he is not saying these things off the top of his head?”

Dahal is not assured about the virtues of eradicating syndicates either. “What if removing the trans­port syndicates is not in the interest of the common people? I mean: Does the prime minister have hard data on how the removal of syndi­cates will actually help folks like us? Without proper homework, what if, for instance, transport fares go up rather than down?”

Upendra Gautam of China Study Center echoes Dahal’s doubts. “The prime minister’s announcement of a crackdown on various cartels and syndicates will be meaningless unless they are backed by strong and consistent action.”

Gautam cites how more devel­oped countries use different prox­ies to gauge the effectiveness of their government. “For instance, it is generally thought that if a country has well-enforced traf­fic rules, other public services also function effectively,” Gautam adds. “But the enforcement of traffic rules in Nepal is extremely lax. So what are the metrics with which we judge this government? Words are not enough.”

In the opinion of security analyst Geja Sharma Wagle, “This is perhaps the strongest government democratic Nepal has ever had. Yet it has been unable to make decisions commensurate with such power.”

What kind of decisions is Wagle talking about?

“Take the prime minister’s decision to bring the National Investigation Department and the Department of Money Laun­dering Investigation under the PMO. Having done so, he should have immediately set about drafting the requisite policies and regulations to make them work. Yet he has done nothing of the kind,” Wagle says.

Unintended consequences

Wagle brings up other unintend­ed consequences of the central­ization of power. “Now that the government’s intelligence-gather­ing unit has been brought under the PMO, the Home Ministry has been deprived of a crucial source of security-related information—with grave ramifications down the line,” he adds.

Prasai, the writer, believes the prime minister is pandering to people’s desire to consume more and more—to have wider roads, bigger airports and comfortable homes—without a broader debate on whether such an approach is in the country’s best interest. “PM Oli likes to talk about bringing railways from India and China but he seldom discloses their cost. Are such expen­sive railway links worth it?” he asks.

Gautam of China Study Center, for his part, says he has seen too many governments in Nepal in his lifetime, and how they have mis­erably failed people after promising so much at the outset. “So let us hope that this gov­ernment is different, but let us also wait a bit before we start trusting it.”

“All the while PM Oli has been projecting himself as a vision­ary,” says Asmita Verma, who has just completed her Masters in International Relations from Amity University in New Delhi. “But he has thus far unveiled no roadmap for the much-touted development and prosperity.”

Verma sees Oli’s gestures like addressing the country on the Nepali new year from Rara Lake and his adoption of children to educate them as nothing but “populist gim­micks, which he is quite good at.”

But what about foreign policy? Hasn’t the communist prime min­ister done a rather good job of balancing Nepal’s two important neighbors? “His overtures to the outside world are ill-prepared and incoherent, as if he is trying to balance himself on two different boats,” says Verma.

And then, Madhes

In contrast, Hari Bansh Jha, a former professor of economics at Tribhuvan University and currently a visiting fellow at India’s Observer Research Foundation, credits Oli for bringing a degree of warmth back to Nepal-India ties. But again, when it comes to the domestic sphere, he too believes “there has been no substantive change.”

“If PM Oli says that per capita income of Nepalis has grown along with our GPD, we have to remember that these are not overnight phe­nomena. The foundation for what­ever turnaround in the economy we are witnessing was laid before Oli became prime minister,” Jha says.

He also thinks that the Oli govern­ment has ignored the Madhesi issue of constitution amendment, which would mean that the “Madhesis will continue to harbor a degree of resentment against Kathmandu.”

All in all, nearly everyone I talked to for this report—some cited, some not—seemed to agree that the all-powerful government of KP Oli could do much good. Some of his recent decisions have aroused a glimmer of hope. But people are not ready to believe him—not yet. These conversations also suggest that while Oli can perhaps afford to ignore the views of some members of the intelligentsia, as he recently suggested he would, he as the prime minister needs to pay attention to the hopes and fears of common folks .

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s appointment of a relatively clean and competent cabinet, his efforts to carefully balance India and China, and his unequivocal commitment to dismantle cartels and syndicates of all kinds—he has done much to win public support. Yet common folks and the intelligentsia alike remain skeptical of his intent.

“Prime Minister Oli seems to be in a mood to centralize powers, which is antithetical to the spirit of federalism,” says Ujjwal Prasai, a writer.

Suman Dahal, a lecturer at Apex College in Old Baneshwor, also sees a troubling pattern in how Oli is governing. “He claims he will bring railways from India and China. He says he will end the reign of syndicates. But how do we know he is not saying these things off the top of his head?”

Likewise, former professor of economics at TU and currently a visiting fellow at India’s Observer Research Foundation, Hari Bansh Jha, believes the Oli government has ignored the vital issue of constitution amendment, which means the “Madhesis will continue to harbor a degree of resentment against Kathmandu.” There are other doubters too (see: XYZ).

Nepali citizens, it seems, have had enough of hearing so many broken promises from their elected representatives. Oli’s second inning as prime minister will therefore be under constant public scrutiny.

True, there was overwhelming support for Oli’s strong stand against India during the blockade, which in turn translated into many votes for his left alliance in the subsequent elections. But having elected him to office, people now want to see substantive changes, in their own lives and in the parlous state of their country. 

Full News Here...

KathmanduArticle 17 of the new consti­tution grants the citizens of Nepal “freedom of opinion and expression”. But there is a cave­at. “Reasonable restrictions”, says the charter, may be imposed “on any act which may undermine the nationality, sovereignty, indepen­dence and indivisibility of Nepal, or federal units, or jeopardizes the harmonious relations subsisting among the people of various caste, ethnicity, religion, or communities.”The same Article provisions fur­ther restrictions on acts deemed to “incite racial discrimination, or untouchability, or disrespects labor, or any act of defamation, or con­tempt of court, or an incitement of offence, or is contrary to decent public behavior or morality”.

With so many conditions on free expression and dissent, can we say there is freedom of expres­sion in Nepal?

Couldn’t the state for instance easily misuse the statute to sup­press dissent and stifle free press? After all, this is a country that not long ago deported a foreign nation­al for expressing views that were deemed against ‘national interest’. More recently, some allege that the all-powerful government of KP Sharma Oli is trying to impose severe restrictions on I/NGOs on the pre­text of ‘systematizing’ them. Former prime minister and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba calls it ‘creeping authoritarianism’. More­over, as has recently been the case in India, rumors continue to swirl in Nepal about new laws to ‘regulate’ online news.

In theory, yes. In practice, depends

“Principally, free speech should not be restricted under any condition,” says Bipin Adhikari, an expert on constitutional law. “But it is much easier to advocate for absolute freedom of speech in developed countries. Perhaps it is unrealistic to apply the same stan­dards to developing countries where freedom of expression is but one of the many citizen rights that need state protection.”

In his view, our constitutional provisions are in keeping with the country’s needs and level of devel­opment. More importantly, says Adhikari, the culture of listening to each other and accepting diversity is growing in Nepal.

But writer CK Lal, a trenchant critic of the new constitution—and of what he labels the ‘Per­manent Establishment of Nepal’ (PEON), comprised of the tra­ditionally dominant Khas-Arya ethnic group—sees a troubling trend gaining ground. “Earlier, during the Panchayat rule, there used to be window dressing that pur­portedly depicted the state’s inclusion­ary character. But with ethno-na­tionalism enshrined as the central character of the new constitution, even the need for such window dressing has been dispensed with.”

Lal does not believe dissent is easily tolerated in Nepal because “a society built on a single religion is an inherently dogmatic society. And the more assertive the religion becomes, the more dogmatic the society gets.”

If that is the case, isn’t life difficult for dissidents like him?

“Yes, it is. You become an outcast just because you refuse to jump into the gravy train,” Lal replies.

Permanent critics?

What about the accusation that critics and dissenters like him are stuck in a narrow well and simply cannot see beyond it? And why do they always, as some put it, have to talk negative? “How do you dif­ferentiate between negative and positive views?” asks Yug Pathak, another harsh critic of the current ruling establishment comprised of the ‘old Hindu elite’. “In a free society, there has to be healthy debate on all important issues. Only robust debates produce creative sparks of knowledge.”

Pathak blames Nepal’s “flawed history” for what he sees as the prevalent intolerance. “Things started going awry when the Gorkhalis start­ed their campaign of state expansion and internal col­onization. They controlled the whole narrative. Only at the start of the 20th century did ideas from outside the country start trickling in.”

But even in the 20th century the public space was captured by the ruling elite, Pathak says, largely because they contin­ued to control the means of pro­duction. “The kind of Hindu fundamentalism we see in India these days is absent in Nepal. But whenev­er someone says anything against the dominant narrative, that person is dismissed as a nega­tive influence on the society.”

Fine lines

Siddharth Varadarajan, former editor of The Hindu and the found­ing editor of thewire.in, a vital online platform in India for anti-establish­ment and dissenting views, thinks that one should make a distinction between dissent and freedom of expression. “More than dissent, it’s freedom of expression that’s import­ant,” he told APEX.

“The freedom to express oneself in ways that others may not agree with is essential to a democracy and to a free society. Journalists and writers must be free to write, publish and broadcast. Artists must be free to paint. Directors must have the freedom to make the movies they want. And dissidents must have the freedom to dissent.”

Varadarajan points out that while dissent is legal under the Indian constitution, “the individual’s free­dom of expression is often under assault in India.”

Rubeena Mahato, an outspoken Nepali writer and newspaper col­umnist, also qualifies dissent. “A party intellectual who has benefit­ted from being close to power cen­tres his entire life suddenly becomes a ‘dissenting voice’ simply because he opposes the new government. Hateful, racist and inflammatory speech is given space in the main­stream media in the name of repre­senting ‘dissenting voices’.”

“But when it comes to real dis­sent, one that challenges established wisdom, one that is not just about being disruptive to the authority, but comes with a vision about the future, from a place of moral high ground and often at personal costs and sacrifice to those holding it, we are not so tolerant,” Mahato says.

Adhikari, the constitutional expert, cites the fact that even the remotest communities in the coun­try are ruled by elected bodies these days, with growing representation of women and other traditionally marginalized groups, as an example of how the Nepali state has become more inclusive and tolerant. But Lal, the commentator, sees further entrenchment of the traditional Hin­du ethnic hierarchy with the prom­ulgation of the new constitution, which in his view stifles dissent.

‘Corrected’ women

What about Nepali women Adhikari alludes to? Are they free to speak their mind in ‘New Nepal’? Not so, argues Mahato.

“When a woman speaks, peo­ple still feel the need to ‘correct’ her. So engaging in equal terms in public forums or having a produc­tive debate is close to impossible,” she says. “And if you are a woman with contrarian views, you are likely to be punished for your opinions even more.”

“No wonder so many women just choose to stay silent,” Mahato adds, “even on issues they feel strongly about.”

Such strong, and often polarizing, views suggest that dissent and free speech are still matters of intense debate in Nepal. We can only hope that as our democracy matures, so will our public debates.