Submit your Article

Tackling with the Covid-19 pandemic calls for a robust public policy response. While there is no denying that the pandemic has challenged the capacities of even the best public health systems, that can’t be a pretext for any country to shy away from the responsibility of general welfare in these tough times. A critical inquiry into the public policy response of Nepal indicates that the measures adopted so far have been rather inadequate and inappropriate even though authorities continue to dismiss this fact. 

Ever since the first outbreak in Nepal, the pattern of policy response has shown some familiar characteristics. With an inability to take timely decisions on crucial matters, be it lockdown or virus containment, the health ministry bureaucracy has become badly exposed. Needless to say, the statements of some officials have only added to public confusion and anxiety. Health experts are also miffed about the government’s failure to get their buy-in. A single-handed approach to crisis management without taking other stakeholders into confidence has proved lethal, which is also evidenced by soaring Covid cases. 

Conflict ensued when the government made it mandatory for all hospitals to allocate dedicated Covid beds without consulting them. The government might have done it with the best intent but it still failed to take the concerned parties into confidence. Moreover, the policy leaders have appeared reluctant to heed even non-partisan voices demanding an improved policy response. We definitely face a resource constraint yet we can also effectively mobilize available resources. Standards of accountability and transparency have fallen sharply during the pandemic. Be it the Omni group scandal or financial irregularities in the Covid-related treatment, mistrust is growing over the government handling of the crisis.   

The very notion of a socialism-oriented Nepali state spelled out in the constitution has witnessed severe setbacks, particularly in the aftermath of some baffling decisions over the crisis. The decision to halt free treatment of Covid patients, which has now been reversed following a Supreme Court ruling, was a serious departure from the commitment to socialism. Amid the rising number of infected patients who are dying for the want of money, such an irrational decision met with vehement criticism. That said, the government later clarified that it would bear the cost of the socio-economically deprived population. Not to forget, Right to Health, one of the 31 fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, ensures that every citizen shall have equal access to health service. However, the Covid-19 policy response continues to disproportionately affect poor people’s access to health services. Whether we refer to the recovery rate of this category of population or Covid fatalities, a bleak picture emerge.

Lately, the decision of the Kathmandu metropolitan city to restrict the campaign to feed hungry people in Tundikhel sparked great outcry. The situation became so tense that the mayor had to organize a press conference to clarify and defend the move. But the decision to shift the feeding spot isn’t convincing given the tainted image of the municipal leader who was also a victim of the virus. 

The government is left with a Hobson’s choice for devising an effective policy response. Revisiting recent policy decisions and intensifying multi-stakeholder consultation can never come too late. Coordination with private health institutions including the civil society will require a proactive policy leadership dedicated to general welfare. There is still an opportunity for the government to show that a smart policy response with honest intent can succeed. 

The author is an independent writer and researcher

When the entire country was reeling under the corona crisis, the residents of Khokana, an antique Newari village with rich traditions, also had to fend off the police. Infringement of their right to cultivate land and violent attack on the local community go against the ILO 169 provision on land, which recognizes people’s right of ownership and possession of lands they traditionally occupy. Further, the ILO convention calls on the State to safeguard the right of the people to the use of lands on which they rely for subsistence and traditional activities.

Accusing the locals of trying to illegally plant paddy along the 300 ropanis of the land acquired for the Kathmandu-Terai expressway, the police opted for heavy intervention, against which the otherwise calm locals retaliated. With over five years of dillydallying in compensating for the acquired land, thereby breaching several agreements, the State’s intent to dishonor the rights of the local community had already been exposed. Even as the land worth billion of rupees had been accounted at a very low price, the planned attack on the settlement raised some troubling questions about our development process.

Further, the locals asking the police force to arrange for those who understand their language as a condition for talks  signals the growing mistrust of the centralized system that considers development as its prerogative. The lukewarm State response to the socio-cultural and emotional needs of Khokana locals has not only sparked aggression and hatred among the community, but also posed grave questions about the vision of our development: What are the values of our development? Which principal actors are shaping the development agenda? What is the State’s perception of local communities’ role in this development?

Overemphasis on economic pursuits has been the hallmark of our development. A close look at the history of planned development in Nepal shows a focus on infrastructure and technology. So development and prosperity are equated with the successful completion of national pride projects in hydroelectricity, irrigation, and agriculture. There is no harm in advancing economic dimensions of development. What is of concern though is the dismantling of socio-cultural ethos and values. Whether in the case of the decision to push ahead with the Nijgadh Airport defying the Supreme Court order or the recent action against Khokana dwellers, economic development at any cost remains the priority.

Development endeavors in Nepal have traditionally treated local communities as adversaries. The State has historically been apathetic to the protection and promotion of age-old traditions and values that characterize these communities. More worrisome, the indigenous knowledge systems of communities are considered impediments to modern development.

A blanket approach to development without accommodating community voices and concerns appeared in the Khokana case too. In fact, the State still wants to settle outstanding conflicts with communities solely from an economic point of view. With a false belief that community resentment is only about financial compensation to acquired land, the State is mulling a financial deal without bothering about local demand for restoration of the unique heritage and culture of the place. This leaves the root cause of the conflict unaddressed.

The crucial questions of development—‘For whom?’, and ‘By which process?’—have not gotten much attention in our development discourse. The discourse has instead appeared incompatible to the need of our communities and cultures. Various obtrusive forces have penetrated our system, thwarting local initiatives. The high-handedness of international and regional development actors in shaping Nepal’s development policies is a testimony to this. Development initiatives in Nepal have thus catered to a few privileged groups—donors, project managers, contractors, bureaucrats, and policymakers.

It is important to think beyond the confines of the centralized system and authorities to include the perspectives of local communities in designing development policies and programs. Listening to grassroots voices and finding mutually beneficial ways will be vital to the sustainability of our development endeavors.

The author is an independent writer and researcher