Submit your Article

 Six months have passed since KP Sharma Oli took office. From big aspirations and high hopes in the early days of government forma­tion, his image is slowly declining. I have been closely following the prime minister’s statements, speeches, interviews, and the kinds of activities he is engaged in. In doing so, I feel I have developed a love-hate relationship with the man. Sometimes I feel he’s doing what he can in a difficult and complex system. At other times, however, I feel he is a waste altogether. When hating him, I’m asking myself: Am I being too harsh? And when I’m in admiration, I’m thinking: Maybe I’m being too kind.

Truth is, I want to be able to hold on to the aspirations I had during election time, not necessarily for KP Oli, but for a positive and forward-looking new chapter to begin. But I can feel these hopes being dashed as the days pass. I find myself constantly wondering what this ‘two-third majority’ is doing and why it seems incapable of delivering despite the electoral advantage.

Since taking office, Oli has announced so many things: zero tolerance of corruption, good gov­ernance, transparency, prosper­ity, balanced foreign relations with China and India, and more.

The issues of corruption, good governance and transparency took some momentum in the first few months but have since lost steam. In fact, on corruption, there seems to be a selective bias on who should and should not be held accountable, with those close to the PM and other NCP colleagues exempt from trans­parency measures.

In terms of building on relations with China and India, Oli has indeed taken some action to level the play­ing field. However, this obsessive focus on China and India has left other foreign allies in the dark, lead­ing to a feeling of isolation. As the foreign minister Pradeep Gyawali has highlighted, if other foreign allies are feeling isolated, that too is not a positive development.

As a result, what was once an overwhelming support for the administration has declined signifi­cantly. A good number of people still believe in this government and its intentions. However, there is a growing number of naysayers.

Recently, I have closely studied two of PM Oli’s recent statements: a speech delivered at the closing ceremony of the Conference on the Constitution of Nepal 2015 on August 13 in Kathmandu and this week’s interview with him on AP1 Television taken by Tika Ram Yatri.

While addressing the conference, PM Oli expressed his firm commit­ment to implementing the constitu­tion, abiding by its ‘letter and spirit’. Oli said, “Make no mistake. We will do what the constitution requires of the government, and deliver to the people peace, good governance, development, and prosperity”. He added, “Through the Constitution, we have adopted a competitive multi-party system of governance with constitutional supremacy, peri­odic elections, human rights, the rule of law, separation of powers as well as check and balance, and an independent judiciary.” It was probably one of the best speeches delivered—in English!—by PM Oli. It was rich in content and gave a holistic picture of our constitution.

The second instance, his inter­view on the Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya talk show, made an emotional appeal to the public. He said, “I don’t know how long I will live but I know I will try, as much as I can, to put Nepal on the path of prosper­ity”. He insisted, “I have nothing to gain at the personal level from this position. My life is for this country and the people”.

In both instances, there is a gen­eral commitment to progress and development. But there is little articulation—and thus action—on how that would materialize. As such, there is a lurking fear that all these promises will be relegated to speeches and interviews, with very little delivery as the months turn into years

I had not expected the Oli government to start facing public criticism so soon, a mere five months into its likely five-year term. When the communist alliance secured an absolute majority, a lot of people felt this was an opportunity for the government to bolster peace, prosperity and stability. But things are taking a negative turn too soon. The Oli government’s popularity is gradually beginning to erode due to a combination of its actions and inactions. It is becoming glaringly apparent that turning rhetoric into reality will take much more than what the government currently has to offer.

But considering the high hopes many people had, lack of rapid progress on key day-to-day struggles is giving rise to a grow­ing sense of anger and despair.

The major trend that we see is that of misplaced priority. There seems to be little to no effort at relieving everyday stressors for people or even on larger projects that would remove those stressors. The govern­ment instead seems bent on making things difficult for many people. It is obvious that it is more focused on centralized control than on devolved growth.

For one, this government is not serious about the constitution. The majority of the actors involved in drafting the constitution are now a part of this government and yet it lacks the passion and commitment to uphold constitutional values.

It behaves as if it is above the constitu­tion. If the political actors and the gov­ernment do not own up the constitution, and abide by it, fertile ground for a fresh conflict will be created.

Instead of building a system of gover­nance based on laws, government minis­ters are making serious decisions without proper legal basis. The announcement of the end of transport syndicate, Home Ministry’s direction to regulate NGOs/INGOs, weak or dysfunctional consti­tutional bodies like CIAA are but a few examples of how ministers’ whims inform government decisions. As a result, federal, provincial as well as local level govern­ments are becoming weaker.

Perhaps the government is not clear about how it wants to steer national level policies on health, education, diplomacy, human rights and more. It also doesn’t seem to be taking into account possi­ble backlash on far-reaching decisions. In fact there seems to be no process for consultation with relevant stakeholders before decisions are made. For instance, the new integrity policy and medical education bill suggest that the govern­ment is unaware of the impact of pushing agendas without broader consultation and ownership.

Most shockingly, there is no eagerness to learn from practices and policies that have and haven’t worked in the past. Instead of enhancing knowledge and harnessing best practices, the government seems to believe that having attained two-thirds major­ity, there is no further scope for growth. As such, decisions are not informed and evidence-based, but rather made at personal whims.

These factors are creating a churning at the grassroots that will slowly chip away public confidence in this admin­istration. The government will realize this sooner or later, but by then the damage may be done. The opportunity to deliver on some key indicators for growth is not yet lost; after all it has only been five months since this government came to power.

But frustration will mount if there con­tinues to be opacity about government actions and if power is not devolved as per the spirit of the constitution. And we all know what mounting frustration among a young and largely unemployed citi­zenry means.

The constitution is a living doc­ument and, as such, it reflects the public’s spirit and aspira­tions. By no means is it meant to be interpreted as a wish list, but instead as a document which guides the everyday direction of the state, its functions and functionaries. Obvi­ously, if our leaders thought some­thing could not be implemented or handled, it should not have been written in the constitution. Bearing that in mind, constitution­ally, Nepal is a federal republic. After completing three tiers of elections, we are moving forward towards implementing federalism. Oddly, however, when political leaders are asked individually, the majority express some form of disappoint­ment over the federal structure we have recently passed. The very lead­ers who spent years mulling over the content of the Statute and were very much a part of its writing process now show little ownership over the document, and federalism in partic­ular. The uneasy answer of having signed on to the constitution under some ‘external pressures’ looms over the political class.

Perhaps this is why the trends we have been observing when it comes to implementing a federal constitu­tion is dubious at best. There is a real danger that Nepal’s federalism may be limited to name only.

We all know the Constitution of Nepal, although a commendable document, is rather vague on many issues. Some of the concepts, for example the declaration of Nepal as ‘pro-socialist’ country has no legal interpretation. Technically, only politicians can explain its spirit. Similarly, the definition of secu­larism is also beyond the under­standing of legal eyes. Even feder­alism through three tiers, which is explicit, seems to still be politically open for negotiation!

The irony is that for the last decade, the entire focus was on drafting the constitution, but once we got it, it is quickly being for­gotten. Still many elected lawmak­ers (federal, provincial and local) do not understand the letter and spirit of our constitution. Even those who invested in the process of constitution drafting are slowly turning a blind eye when it comes to safeguarding and implementing what’s in there. Constitutional lit­eracy is the need of the hour and neither the state nor the non-gov­ernmental sector seems to be paying much attention.

What’s in store for a state that deliberately undermines the value of the constitution and for a non-governmental sector busy in keeping business going is that there will be a gradual shift to centralized tendencies. Rather than focusing on implementing the constitution in letter and spirit, the government has diverted attention to stability and prosperity. The people are obediently being swept off their feet with promises of an economic revo­lution of sorts, which deep down we know is simply impossible without strengthening constitutionalism and rule of law.

Apart from the discrepancies in constitutional implementation I mentioned in my last column, there are a further two major upcoming constitutional deadlines by when the government must complete drafting new bills and pass them through the federal parliament. The first one is related to fundamental rights. As guided by the constitu­tion, within three years of declaring the constitution, this government must enact several bills related to fundamental rights. That is, by Sep­tember 19, 2018, these bills need to have been passed and they are more than three dozen in number.

The second is that within one year of the first meeting of the federal parliament, the government must enact all bills under the new con­stitution. The first meeting of the federal parliament was held on Feb 5, 2018.

If the government fails to replace the old bills with the new ones by Feb 4, 2019, the old bills will be automatically expelled and a situa­tion of constitutional vacuum will be created. It is already late-June and little to no work has been done on the hundreds of new bills and amendments that will be needed.

The Oli government and the oppo­sition parties are not serious about this potential constitutional crisis. The constitution is new but the mindset of party leaders is old and centralized, and going by the ‘old’ ways, the political class will find it easy to continue to shift and move deadlines to suit their political ends. A simple amendment here and there and this transition will be ongoing for another decade without all of us having even realized its costs. Prosperity surely cannot come in a constitutional vacuum.

The constitution, the main law of this country, sets out rules and standards to run our gov­ernment. Any law or decision that contradicts the constitution should technically be immediately rejected. In democracies, broadly speaking, we are taught that no one is above the constitution. Depending on public demand and sentiments, the constitution may be amended but any government which tries to undermine the con­stitutional spirit without amend­ment raises serious questions. If we minutely examine the working style of Oli government, the constitu­tion is seemingly being undermined time and again. However, this gov­ernment has been enjoying public confidence and will continue to do so for at least a few more months, in the hope that it will begin to rectify its mistakes and reaffirm its commitment to our constitu­tional values and spirit.

We are in a crucial phase of consti­tution implementation and it is now or never insofar as implementation of the core tenets of the constitu­tion are concerned. Federalism is one of the major achievements of this constitution. The mecha­nism to distribute resources is the backbone of federalism, deter­mining the rise or fall of our federal structure. No doubt, in tune with the aspirations of KP Sharma Oli and his government, we want to see a prosperous Nepal. We want to ensure the success of federalism. But, ironi­cally, the Oli government is already breaching the constitution in run­ning the government.

For instance, the government’s budget and policies and programs for the fiscal year 2018/19 completely undermine the potential role of the National Natural Resources and Fis­cal Commission (NNRFC, Part 26, and The Constitution of Nepal), a constitutional body that is central to shaping the budget, policies and programs. Without giving the com­mission full shape, the government does not have the constitutional mandate to announce the federal government’s budget, policies and programs. The government sneakily took a short cut by declaring the formation of the commission, but without full membership, impor­tantly without apolitical appointed expert members.

A government which is appar­ently determined to transform the country’s destiny must first learn to abide by the constitution and set higher standards for its own working style. We see two faces of this government. On the one hand, this government is not respectful of the constitution, and on the other, it’s engaged in an aggressive cam­paign to prove it’s the only gov­ernment we have had working for prosperity and equity. It’s unclear which facet of the administration represents its true color.

The issue of the fiscal commission may seem trivial but let’s exam­ine what the commission actu­ally is and the implications of not having a fully functional one before the budget. In the absence of the House of Representatives Reg­ulations, the government made excuses for not forming the com­mission. In fact, the regulations were endorsed after the budget was announced, which is also not in line with the constitution.

Now, with the endorsement of the regulations for both the National Assembly and the House of Repre­sentatives, the first moral task of this government is to form the fiscal commission and start rectifying the mistake it made by first announcing the budget.

The fiscal commission is instru­mental in shaping the future of federalism. While appointing its chairperson and members, the government must rise above party interests. Otherwise, we can already predict the failure of federalism due to fiscal imbalances.

In fact, the majority of fiscal tasks in the federal set up are guided by the commission and we know well that the success—or failure—of fed­eralism lies in how resources are allocated. The work of the com­mission includes important roles such as determining the detailed basis and modality for the distri­bution of revenues between fed­eral, state and local governments from the federal consolidated fund; making recommendations about equalization grants to the state and local governments out of the federal consolidated fund; determining a detailed basis and modality for the distribution of revenues between the state and the local governments; recommending measures to meet expenditures of the federal, state and local governments; reforming revenue collection; and more (For detailed work list, please see Part 26 of the Constitution).

It’s strange why such an important commission is still in the shadows. Even opposition parties did not bother to raise this issue in parlia­ment and sat quietly and obediently as the budget was passed. Even if it is water under the bridge, the formation of this commission must be this government’s priority in line with its constitutional, procedural and moral obligations.

In a video address to the public on the occasion of the completion of the first 100 days of this govern­ment, Prime Minister KP Oli boldly proclaimed: “This government does not work for populism. We become popular by doing good work.” The paradox however is exempli­fied in the accomplishments, or lack thereof, of this administration. Deep down we all know this government is largely founded on populism and it’s still unclear how Oli and his gov­ernment will change the dynamic.

To be clear, 100 days are not suffi­cient to really assess the intentions and scope of a government. But a preliminary ground assessment shows plenty of hot air with little or no substantial effort in changing the working style of the Nepali state. Still the public are constantly being fed words of hope and imminent prosperity, which may ring hollow in the face of hopelessness and frus­tration of the realities of everyday life. It is as though drumming the idea of prosperity into the minds of the people would be enough to magically lift the curtain and make ‘prosperity’ materialize.

Missing pieces

In his address, PM Oli outlined 16 major achievements of the gov­ernment in its first 100 days. It is unheard of in any country, much less in one of the poorest and most cor­rupt, that 16 major feats are achieved in 100 days. But as with most things, KP Oli says these achievements too are a product of his imagination and dreams. The truth is, it is unclear where the administration is headed after its first 100 days.

The government received over­whelming public support to stamp out the transport cartel. Everyone in the government proudly talks about how Nepal’s transport syn­dicate has come to an end. How­ever, we are yet to see how this gov­ernment intends to manage public transport, improve its quality and ensure passenger safety. The only tangible change we see is that public transport operators are now forced to register their vehicles under the Company Act. This does not nec­essarily bring about changes in ser­vices. If concrete measures are not taken to actually improve services, there is no meaning in ‘ending the transport syndicate’.

Similarly, PM Oli has repeatedly made commitments to eradicate corruption. He says, “I do not indulge in corruption and do not let others indulge in it either. The days of corrupt people are over.” But again the question is: what steps has he taken to tackle corruption?

The government’s anti-corruption body remains headless. Oli seems to have no interest in appointing a head for the Commission for the Investigation of the Abuse of Authority (CIAA), possibly because it is a position rife with political interests. The way the system cur­rently functions, it is near impos­sible to appoint a credible figure to head the body without compro­mising on political interests, which this government is not ready to do. Instead, the focus has shifted to specific cases of gold smuggling and immigration fraud. Oli under­stands that investigating isolated incidences of smuggling or fraud could make him more popular.

Company he keeps

Early signs indicate that Oli is uninterested in strengthening the system, which has progres­sively decayed over the past two decades. He has not risen above party interests to build a system that works in the nation’s interest. The prime minister is the sum of the company he keeps, and being sur­rounded by only party cadres with mediocre professional grit means lit­tle is likely to change in the govern­ment’s working style. Party meet­ings continue to be held in Balu­watar and there is a reluctance to engage professionals in supporting the administration, opting instead for loyal party cadres who do not question or analyze critically. This is a practice that goes back to the beginning of the democratic era and has been a core cause behind the disarray in the governing system.

No doubt, Oli seems desperate to leave a positive mark during his premiership, but his working style is likely to prove counter-productive in realizing his dream. To deliver results, Oli must first and foremost rise above party interests and estab­lish himself as a national leader working in the national interest.

As expected, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Nepal brought to the fore the bitterness in Nepal-India relations and also between the Hills and the Madhes. Nonetheless, there is much to be said about an Indian Prime Minister visiting Nepal three times in quick succession in a context where there had been no official visits from India to Nepal for over two decades before Modi’s tenure. And without improv­ing economic ties and establishing mutual respect with India, it is vir­tually impossible for Nepal to even begin to flourish. Though Modi did not publicly apologize for the block­ade, which most Nepalis wanted, there was tact in his demeanor this time that said in no unquiet terms that he knows what he had done.

With the blockade over two years behind us, Modi’s visit did open up the avenue for a new and redefined relationship with India, albeit per­haps not as revolutionarily redefined as some of us might have hoped.

Changing narrative

If we go back to 3 August 2014, and remember Modi’s address to Nepal’s then-Constituent Assem­bly, the change in his language and narrative to accommodate the cur­rent political realities of a UML-led government is quite apparent. In fact, the way in which politics was dealt with this time was seemingly not to deal with it at all; all atten­tion was shifted to the political rel­evance of the religious purpose of Modi’s visit.

It was quite apparent that elec­tions in India had driven Modi’s “pil­grimage” to Nepal. Nonetheless, for our political actors, some space was created to engage with India about its promises to deliver on develop­ment programs in Nepal.

Addressing Parliament on May 13, PM Oli shared an overview of Modi’s visit, and although little can be known about the intentions to realize any of the plans, Oli had thought through what he was look­ing to achieve from Modi’s visit. PM Oli however did not receive the public applaud he had hoped for his attempts to redefine relations with India, for example, by not going to welcome Modi himself at the airport or accompanying him everywhere. In fact, Modi’s visit and the way the Nepali state handled it have elicited mixed responses.

In particular, it was odd to see that in Janakpur, the provincial government played an integral role in engaging with the Indian Prime Minister on his visit to the Janaki temple, whereas on his visit to Muktinath, the provincial gov­ernment was nowhere to be seen. There were other anomalies that were also brought up on social media platforms, for example, the government’s decision to host the program at Rastriya Sabha Griha primarily in English and secondarily in Nepali, raising concerns over the relevance to do so.

Trade deficit

Toward the end of Modi’s trip, the Nepal-India joint statement released on 12 May has set a September 2018 deadline to outline a clear imple­mentation plan for bilateral agree­ments. To understand the gravity of the agreements’ implementation, let’s take one agreement as an exam­ple: The two prime ministers have agreed to review the considerable trade deficit between the two coun­tries and find ways to address it.

Our trade dependency with India is high. Whereas 64 percent of our total import comes from India, only 12 percent comes from China. Similarly, 66 percent of our total export goes to India while only 3 percent goes to China. According to the Trade and Export Promo­tion Center (TEPC), Nepal’s trade deficit in 2017 was around Rs 500 billion; we imported goods worth around Rs 540-550 billion whereas we exported goods worth only Rs 30-40 billion.

Furthermore, in the last decade, the average growth in export is 4.2 percent whereas the average growth in import is 18.2 percent. Our current Finance Minister has been relentlessly going on about how without increasing investment and production in the country, there is no way to address the trade deficit with India.

In sum, if tangible methods to decrease the trade deficit with India are implemented jointly by the two governments, Nepal will gain much in terms of economic growth. But it’s very clear it will require more than lip service on the part of both the Indian state and our own leaders.

The agreement on addressing the trade deficit is just one of the many others that were reached, which if sincerely implemented, could pro­foundly impact Nepal’s everyday reality. Arun III hydroelectric proj­ect, which ironically was obstructed by the UML for over a decade, has been inaugurated.

There have been agreements on more air routes, more cross-bor­der routes, the Ramayana circuit etc. which have the potential for tremendous positive impact. But it ultimately boils down to the will and resources on the part of both actors to bring the agreements to fruition. PM Oli may well try to pressurize India to act, and act fast, for his visit to China has also just been con­firmed for June. Stay tuned.

A few days ago, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali returned from a visit to China. It is widely believed that his trip was planned to ready the grounds for Oli’s impending visit to China. Gyawali also reaffirmed Nepal’s commitment to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) where he highlighted five priority areas for Nepal to work with China. The BRI, as we well know, has been a bane for our southern neighbor as the ambitious project actively promotes strong Chinese ties with regions tra­ditionally considered to be within India’s ‘sphere of influence’.

Gyawali made one statement during his visit to China that did the rounds on social media here in Nepal: he shared with Chi­nese officials a dream of his to ride to China on a train from Nepal, soaking up the scenic beauty of the Himalayas as he crosses the bor­der. As such, the five priority areas under BRI for Nepal, Gyawali explained, would be expanding transport networks, building inter-country electricity networks, modernizing agriculture, promot­ing tourism and fostering peo­ple-to-people ties. Such plans have been in the hearts of many Nepalis for a long time and, if implemented, would indeed propel Nepal’s socio-economic transformation.

But truth is that such conversa­tions have been going on between officials of Nepal, and India and China for many years. The narrative has somewhat changed since the 2015 India-backed blockade, but the effort to transform these con­versations into reality is what really matters. And as we know, conversa­tions with the Chinese are still slow and dull compared with those with the Indians.

In line with protocol and geopolit­ical niceties, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is visiting Nepal next week. Modi’s visit is expected to create some turbulence and it will be closely watched by the Nepali leadership and the public alike. It is likely that some section of the population will protest Modi’s visit and the tensions from the 2015 blockade will resurface to a certain extent. However, Modi knows well that Nepalis have a short public memory and will easily forget the past if a fresh and positive envi­ronment for Nepal-India relations can be built through this trip. Such an environment can easily be cre­ated if substantive agreements and concrete implementation timelines for major development projects can be highlighted. That would go a long way in softening the stance of a large section of the Nepali public toward India.

In recent years, the popular sentiment in Nepal has been inclined toward China and Modi now has a chance to push back, if only by a few inches. However, it’s worth remembering that PM Oli him­self has been a major catalyst in promoting closer ties with China and in distancing common Nepalis from the Indian state and leader­ship. And no sooner does Modi leave Nepal than Oli will begin to plan his trip to China.

With such high level visits taking place one after another, the develop­ment discourse has really gathered momentum. For the first time, there is a general consensus among top Nepali leaders that major political goals have been achieved and that the country’s priority must shift to development. As such, the question for Modi is whether he will choose to dwell on politics or help Nepal’s government lay the ground for ful­filling the development promises it has made to the Nepali people.

If you look at the twitter handle of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli (@kpsharmaoli), the banner picture shows him appar­ently “standing by the truth and being dauntless in the face of power”. Whether or not we agree with such a depiction, Oli does have the opportunity to prove his mettle now. In the past two weeks, he deliv­ered two speeches. The first was in India during his state visit at an event organized by the India Foundation in New Delhi. The second was delivered to the nation from Rara Lake on the day of the Nepali New Year and start of the Rara-Karnali Tourism Year 2075.

Both speeches overflowed with good intentions, potentially transformative ideas and new beginnings. PM Oli does deserve some credit for at least pro­jecting an image of himself and his cabinet that is different and is committed to change in the forms of economic devel­opment, good governance and anti-corruption efforts.

Glorious past, rosy future

Both speeches carried an intrin­sic message: Nepal has a rich and prosperous past. But things slowly fell apart. While it is our good fortune to be born in such a beau­tiful country, it is now mired in a vicious cycle of poverty. But there is no reason why we cannot reverse this situation by utilizing our vast resources and natural beauty. Together, we will change the course of our collective des­tiny and reclaim our history.

In India, Oli’s exact words were: “I have a mandate to work for the long-cherished socio-economic transformation of the country. Ours is the dream of a prosper­ous Nepal where people will have a decent living and youths will have decent jobs; where our infra­structure will be better and our vast, untapped resources will be converted into economic bene­fits and wealth. It’s a dream of overcoming the vicious circle of poverty, underdevelopment and social backwardness.”

Reading just this much, it seems almost as though Oli is talking about some other country, and as if Nepal’s last 20 years have no meaning or significance. If the language were slightly more refined, the speech would resem­ble that of a first-world leader. At Rara Lake, Oli’s speech was simi­lar: more about history and glory and natural resources and wealth. He tried again to remind us that there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful about the prosperity of this country.

However, back in reality and on the ground, our woes remain unchanged and unlikely to change.

On the night PM Oli returned to Kathmandu from his India visit, it was around 8:30pm. Inciden­tally, I got stuck in the traffic jam he created as the route from the airport had to be cleared for his entourage. No big deal. After all, these are the kinds of things we have become used to since the days of the monarchy and the Panchayat years.

Similarly, immediately after the glorious Rara Lake speech, PM Oli returned to Kathmandu. What Oli left behind was gar­bage littered all over the coun­try’s prized natural possession on whose back—according to him—Nepal is supposed to prosper through tourism.

Panchayat-era mentality

Of course these are just anec­dotal examples, but they reflect the unwashed remnants of the Panchayat era mentality that if you talk sweet words about prosper­ity, unity and development, you will not be expected to walk the talk. During the Panchayat era, we witnessed royal trips to different parts of the country. Thousands of people used to gather to listen to the rosy speeches of the royal family members. But once they left the venue, the organizers left everything in chaos, forcing the people to clean up afterwards. The purpose of the speeches of those days was to cheer up the public and had literally no practical value or real intent to transform the people’s lives.

Looking at the antics of Prime Minister Oli, there is a growing worry that he will continue to cheer up and cheer on Nepal and Nepalis, but do very little to actu­ally make a positive impact on our lives. That is the last thing Nepal and Nepalis need.