Submit your Article

At present, several vital bills languish in the Federal Parliament awaiting approval. In the lineup, there is a bill seeking to amend the Prevention of Money Laundering Act-2008, another aiming to reshape the Truth and Reconciliation Act, and a comprehensive bill to revise dozens of laws.

This parliamentary logjam underscores a larger issue of functional hindrance. But it does not stop there. The vision for Nepal's federal structures hinges on the formulation of pertinent laws, yet progress seems mired in stagnation. Altogether there are 25 crucial bills stuck in both houses of the Federal Parliament.

For a month now, the main opposition, CPN-UML, has obstructed the parliament proceedings demanding for a high-level investigation panel to look into the gold smuggling case from Tribhuvan International Airport. The ruling parties have refused to form such a panel, deepening the impasse.

The déjà vu of stalled parliamentary proceedings is not new. Over the years, Nepal's Parliament has become a pawn in the hands of a select few top leaders from major parties—CPN-UML, Nepali Congress, and CPN (Maoist Center). In this precarious power dynamic, ordinances have emerged as a crutch for lawmaking in the absence of parliamentary cooperation.

Critics decry Nepal's Parliament as a rubber stamp wielded by a handful of influential leaders. The casualty in this power play is the legislative process itself, casting a shadow over the primary function of Parliament. Only one citizenship-related bill and a handful of budget-related bills have crossed the parliamentary threshold since the general elections of December last year.

The parliamentary speaker's role, too, has been controversial in recent years. Past speakers Krishna Bahadur Mahara and Agni Sapkota faced accusations of partisan bias, foregoing impartiality. The strained relationship between former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Speaker Sapkota reached its zenith when the latter refused to present America's Millennium Corporation Challenge agreement in Parliament. Current Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire is also under scrutiny for favoring his party, UML, rather than playing the role of a non-partisan arbiter.

The level playing field within Parliament has tilted toward the gravitational pull of political parties. Everyday parliamentary proceedings now rest on the tripartite consensus among Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal of Maoist Center, Sher Bahadur Deuba of NC, and KP Sharma Oli of UML. Meanwhile, smaller parties have seen their influence marginalized.

Top-tier agreements made in Baluwatar among the leaders of these three major parties become binding for Parliament. The speaker's role in mitigating the parliamentary impasse has turned ineffectual.

The art of obstructing Parliament, it appears, has been perfected to a science. A recurrent tactic involves ransoming the legislative process only to agree to its resumption following opaque pacts sealed at Baluwatar. One striking instance revolves around UML's stranglehold on the House, catalyzed by Prime Minister Dahal's remarks concerning an Indian businessman interceding with New Delhi to make him premier. After days of deadlock, UML relented only when Dahal clarified his statements.

This hostage-taking of Parliament by a select few leaders has silenced the voices of lawmakers on critical national matters. The formation of high-level panels and other pressing issues remain stalled as lawmakers are denied their platform.

Experts insist on a lasting solution, suggesting that parties commit to a shared resolution.

Political analyst Geja Sharma Wagle calls for a need to break the cycle of parliament obstruction through commitment among parties to preserve the sanctity of Parliament as a platform for substantive discourse. He says Parliament should be a place for deliberation amidst disagreement.

Subas Nembang, former speaker and UML leader, contends that Nepal's constitution and parliamentary rules failed to anticipate such standstills. While obstruction is not expressly accounted for in legislative provisions, he defends his party’s move by citing a parliamentary precedent for the tactic. Nembang posits that while not explicitly codified, this system obliges the government to address opposition demands when effectively presented.

Daman Nath Dhungana, another former speaker, says the Constituent Assembly's efforts to issue a new constitution have inadvertently sowed the seeds of parliamentary dysfunction. The stranglehold of three dominant political players lives on, perpetuating an environment where political maneuvering takes precedence over governance.

The bad legacy continues, adds Dhungana, with current priorities seeming to center around preserving government, exemplified by Prime Minister Dahal's focus.

The stalemate does not solely impact the full House; it cascades down to the Parliamentary Committees as well. Regarded as mini parliaments, these committees are now relegated to the sidelines, lacking both leadership and a clear agenda. The challenge deepens as committee members grapple with a lack of expertise within their working domains.

The very foundation of democratic governance stands challenged by a recurring cycle of obstruction and partisan strife, which threatens to undermine the nation's progress. It is a disservice committed by the three major parties to the people.

Over a decade ago, Nepal embarked on an earnest mission to fortify journalistic safety and uphold press freedom. A spirited endeavor sought to erect a comprehensive nationwide framework safeguarding the integrity and security of those entrusted with the mantle of holding power accountable. Yet, despite fervent determination and resolute global support, the realization of this noble undertaking remains tantalizingly elusive, emblematic of the chasm between aspiration and realization.

This chronicle finds its genesis in 2012, when Nepal’s vision coalesced into the framework for a journalists’ safety mechanism. Years of meticulous labor culminated in late 2019, with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the custodian of fundamental rights, promulgating protocols harmonized with the tenets of the Human Rights Act of 2012. However, the path from conceptualization to actualization has been punctuated with complexities and challenges.

Despite the concerted support of international organizations, lending their intellectual and financial weight, concrete advancement remains a chimera. Underpinning the stipulated guidelines was a triumvirate of mechanisms, conceived not only to shield journalists but to uphold the bedrock of unbridled expression.

At the epicenter of this vision stands a steering committee, envisaged as the linchpin of the entire edifice. Chaired by a distinguished NHRC member, this committee convenes stakeholders from diverse realms, including the Nepal Bar Association, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Federation of Nepali Journalists, and the Nepal Police.

In 2021, the mantle of coordinating this pivotal committee was bestowed upon NHRC member Manoj Duwady. Yet, substantial progress remains an elusive quarry. Despite three meetings, the initiative languishes in its embryonic state. “Scarce resources, pivotal for the mechanism’s activation, are a critical constraint,” says Duwady.

Nestled within this overarching framework, the inception of a task force within NHRC was envisaged. However, an opaque veil shrouds the mechanics of these mechanisms, leaving stakeholders and the public grappling for clarity. Concurrently, the swift deployment of a rapid response unit, tasked with assuaging the predicaments of local-level journalists ensnared in challenges, remains more an abstract concept than a tangible reality. Regrettably, NHRC's vows remain stuck in the realm of verbal commitments, yet to materialize in the form of a functioning committee.

Laxman Datt Pant, a proponent of international media rights and chairperson of Media Action Nepal, leaves no room for equivocation in his censure of NHRC’s inertia. “The commission’s avowals to safeguard journalists and uphold the freedom of expression sound increasingly hollow,” he says. “Inaction not only corrodes the institution’s credibility but also underscores a palpable dearth of authentic commitment to the very ideals it professes.”

With a clarion call for action to supplant rhetoric, Pant implores NHRC to translate verbal declarations into palpable efforts, echoing the spirit of the ambitious UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.

Having taken root in 2013, this initiative has garnered international solidarity, with prominent entities like UNESCO and stalwarts from the Nepal International Media Partnership providing vital technical counsel to NHRC.

In the face of NHRC’s assertions of constrained resources, a senior official acknowledges an intriguing absence of outreach to international channels for funding.

Ironically, despite multimillion-dollar investments by international entities, the journalist safety mechanism languishes in a state of inertia. Consequently, journalists grappling with danger at the grassroots level find themselves bereft of the prompt succor they direly require.

Bipul Pokhrel, the chairman of the Federation of Nepali Journalists, says that the operational blueprint of the steering committee remains an open question.

“Deliberations are underway to enhance the efficacy of these mechanisms,” he says. Emphasizing the imperative of inclusive stakeholder representation within the steering committee, Pokhrel underscores the significance of financial underpinning.

“With the mandate to safeguard journalists from tangible threats, financial support stands as a cornerstone. Thus, meticulous groundwork emerges as a decisive determinant in guiding the mechanism to realization.”

As Nepal’s chronicle spans over a decade, its odyssey to safeguard its journalistic guardians emerges as a narrative of soaring ideals tempered by intricate implementation. As stakeholders navigate this intricate terrain, the watchful gaze of the press, human rights advocates, and the global community remains riveted, poised for the transformative juncture when words transmute into resolute action.

Former prime minister and CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal cut short his Europe visit to return home after the Supreme Court ordered the authorities to investigate all individuals whose names have been associated in the Lalita Niwas land grab case.

Upon arrival, Nepal told the media that he decided to return to quell the rumor that he fled the country to avoid investigation. He also claimed that he had not taken any bribe when his Cabinet took some decisions concerning the Lalita Niwas property, and that he was willing to help with the investigation. 

The SC order has opened the way for the Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police to investigate the alleged roles of Nepal and another former prime minister, Baburam Bhattarai, in the land misappropriation case. Publicly, top leaders including Nepal have expressed their support to the ongoing investigation. But as more and more politicians are coming under the investigation, top leaders of major political parties are reportedly trying to sabotage the probe.

Soon after returning home, Unified Socialist leader Nepal was involved in a series of meetings with Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba. In these meetings, Nepal reportedly expressed objection over the SC ruling to investigate the former prime ministers and high level government officials. 

Nepal, who believes that the ongoing investigation is ‘politically motivated,’ also held a one-on-one meeting with Deuba. Earlier this week, Deuba also held a meeting with Home Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who has so far maintained that the ongoing investigation into corruption cases should not and will not be influenced by any political party.

Likewise, former prime minister Bhattarai has also expressed displeasure over the SC order. A few days back, he said that there should be an investigation into the alleged corruption that took place during the management of the Maoist cantonment after the party entered the peace process. Of course, Bhattarai was referring to Prime Minister Dahal, chairman of the ruling CPN (Maoist Center). 

The anti-corruption drive launched by the Dahal-led government has sent shockwaves inside major political parties.  As more and more politicians are being dragged into corruption cases, a silent consensus is building among the parties to retard and eventually drop the investigation.  

NC President Deuba in particular is under immense pressure from his party members to protect them from CIB investigation. Congress senior leader and former home minister, Bal Krishna Khand, is already under police custody for his alleged role in the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal. CPN-UML leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi is also under arrest in connection to the same case.

More recently, NC lawmaker Sunil Sharma was also arrested in a case of fake academic certificate distribution. Many NC leaders believe that Prime Minister Dahal has been selectively targeting Congress by opening corruption probes. NC President Deuba, in his recent meeting with Dahal, expressed dissatisfaction over the CIB probe into the fake refugee case and suggested transferring some investigating officers.

The main opposition, UML, has also accused the Dahal government of selectively opening old corruption files to its leaders. A few days back, UML Chairman KP Oli said that Prime Minister Dahal was adopting a ‘Pakistani model’ of arresting opposition leaders on trumped-up corruption charges. 

The ongoing probe into corruption scandals is also gradually creating distance among the ruling coalition partners. The Unified Socialist has already expressed dissatisfaction and is seeking intervention to prevent investigation against its chair Nepal. A rift is also developing between the NC and the Maoists. 

Some NC leaders have even suggested that the party leadership should reconsider its participation in the government, if Dahal continues to target Congress leaders. The NC currently holds nine ministries in the coalition government. However, there is a growing belief among NC leaders and members that the party's influence within the government is waning. Some leaders say that the party should consider forming a new government by aligning with the UML.  

Another coalition partner, the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), has also expressed discontent with the government following the decision to initiate investigations into the 2007 Gaur massacre. Though Prime Minister Dahal later assured to halt the investigation, the JSP remains unconvinced.

The anti-corruption scandal took a new turn after a recent ruling by the apex court concerning the Lalita Niwas land grab scandal placed the ruling coalition in a precarious position. In its Aug 7 ruling to probe everyone involved in the Lalita Niwas land grab case, the Supreme Court said that initiating action only against those government officials who executed decisions while sparing the ones who made those decisions would be unjust. The court has ordered the law enforcement agency concerned to investigative the case from the top down. Along with former prime ministers Nepal and Bhattarai, the SC ruling has also paved the way for the CIB to investigate four former ministers and a number of former secretaries.

Meanwhile, the ruling Maoist party itself has found itself in a fix, as its leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara has been dragged into the July 20 gold trafficking case. The main opposition, UML, has demanded for a separate high-level committee to investigate the case. Some leaders within the Nepali Congress have also supported the idea of forming an independent probe panel. But Home Minister Shrestha, from the Maoist party, has said that the CIB itself will look into the case.

Prime Minister Dahal is being criticized for reportedly trying to protect Mahara by refusing to form an independent panel to investigate the gold smuggling case.    

Quotes

KP Sharma Oli: “The government has initiated the politics of revenge. Though the arrest of some individuals is a normal thing, the government is adopting the Pakistani model of politics. If someone speaks against the government, they are arrested on some pretext.”

Baburam Bhattarai: “I am ready to cooperate with the government agencies on Lalita Niwas case. We should form a high-level investigation panel and all corruption-related scandals should be investigated in a fair way. But the government should not use the corruption file as a tool to terrorize political opponents.”  

Madhav Kumar Nepal: “There should be a fair and impartial investigation and I am ready to fully cooperate with the government agencies. I am not involved in any bribery so I am not nervous about it.”

The US Department of State’s Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Richard Nephew paid an official visit to Nepal this past week. According to the US embassy in Kathmandu, Nephew discussed with Nepali officials the progress regarding Nepal’s anti-corruption commitment as part of Summit for Democracy, and pledged US commitment to supporting Nepal’s efforts to eradicate corruption.

Nephew’s visit comes at a time when Nepal is investigating some big corruption scandals such as the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal, Lalita Niwas land grab and Kathmandu airport gold trafficking case. The US anti-corruption head also met Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Narayan Kaji Shrestha and the leadership of the Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police. 

Fighting corruption is a key component of US foreign policy. In response to ApEx’s email inquiry about Nephew’s visit, a US State Department spokesperson said: “We know as a universal truth that corruption erodes public trust in government and democratic institutions, deepens poverty and inequity, threatens public security, and stifles opportunity and growth.”

“It affects people in virtually every aspect of their daily lives, draining vital resources. That is why President Biden has designated the fight against corruption as a core US national security interest and why Coordinator Nephew’s mission is so important.” 

During his two-day Nepal stay, Nephew met with various Nepali officials  to learn about corruption challenges and to confer on how the US can help address these issues as part of overall Nepal-US partnership.

The US State Department spokesperson said Nephew was not in Nepal to see the progress on any specific case of corruption. In response to ApEx’s inquiry, the spokesperson said: “Just like any allegations of corruption, the current allegations of corruption and the unlawful fabrication of refugee documents in Nepal are concerning.”

This is probably the first time the US has expressed concerns over the fake Bhutanese refugee scam.  

“We understand Nepali authorities are investigating the allegations and hope they will quickly determine what transpired, hold perpetrators accountable, and deter future corruption cases in accordance with the law and the Nepal government’s commitments to transparency and accountability,” said the spokesperson.

“The United States has consistently supported Nepali government and civil society efforts to root out corruption. Transparent investigations into allegations of corruption demonstrate to the Nepali people that no one is above the law.  We commend actions by the Government of Nepal to bring truth to light in accordance with rule of law.”

Between 2007 and 2018, the US has welcomed tens of thousands of Bhutanese refugees formerly residing in Nepal as part of our global commitment to support refugees. The program has since ended, and there were no significant concerns regarding fraudulent activity associated with that resettlement process, said the spokesperson. 

Of late, visiting US officials have been raising corruption eradication as a key agenda to strengthen democracy. Earlier in January, US under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland talked with Nepali politicians about the need to continue fighting corruption.

 The Biden administration in 2021 unveiled the US Strategy on Countering Corruption. In June that year, Biden said that corruption threatens United States national security, economic equity, global anti-poverty and development efforts, and democracy itself. “But by effectively preventing and countering corruption and demonstrating the advances of transparent and accountable governance, we can secure a critical advantage for the United States and other democracies,” he added.  

In Nepal, three corruption scandals—fake refugee scandal, Lalita Niwas land grab and gold smuggling—are under investigation. On the fake refugee case, the CIB has already filed cases against more than one person including former home minister, Bal Krishna Khand, and CPN-UML senior leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi.
The CIB has also reopened the file on Lalita Niwas land grab case in which two former prime ministers Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai have also been implicated. The CIB is also investigating the gold trafficking case from Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport in which the involvement of high profile business persons and politicians has been suspected.

Vice President Ram Sahay Prasad Yadav on Monday left for China for a week-long official visit. He is due to attend the Seventh China-South Asia Exposition and twenty-seventh China Kunming Import and Export Fair.  

Vice President Yadav is also expected to hold some high-level talks with Chinese officials. This will be his first foreign visit after his election in March this year. He had expressed his wish to visit India first, but did not get an invitation from the southern neighbor.

China has increased its engagement with Nepal in recent days. There have been increased high-level visit exchanges between both countries, and these visits are not just limited at government-to-government level. Many visits have taken place at the party-to-party level as well. 

Communist Party of China has sent several of its delegation to Nepal and correspondingly, various political parties of Nepal have received invitations from the CPC. The series of visit exchanges between government officials and political party representatives is a clear sign that China accords high priority to Nepal.       

In meetings with Nepali officials, CPC leaders have said that they are willing to enhance cooperation and exchanges with Nepal in agriculture, poverty reduction and education to enrich the relationship between the two countries through subnational exchanges. 

China stepped up its engagement with Nepali parliamentarians as well, mainly after the endorsement of America’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). 

Earlier in June, Chairman of the National Assembly Ganesh Prasad Timilsina visited China where he held talks with his counterpart Zhao Leji and other high-level government officials. Likewise in July, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Indira Rana-led parliamentary team visited China to attend the Eco Forum Global Guiyang-2023.

Amid flurry of visits, preparations are also underway for Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s visit to China in September. While Beijing has also extended an invite to President Ram Chandra Poudel, he is most likely to visit India first.   

Regarding the possible agenda of Prime Minister Dahal’s upcoming China visit, he has already said that some vital agreements relating to power-trade agreements and bilateral projects would be signed. But some experts say despite Prime Minister Dahal’s plan to sign a power trade agreement with China, it is not feasible. 

Ganesh Karki, chairman of Independent Power Producers’ Association, says after the construction of transmission lines, Nepal could be able to send a small amount of electricity to China, but Nepal’s main market is  India. 

Just like the transit and transport agreement, Dahal may have planned to give a symbolic message, but China cannot become a major market for power trade (see page 4 for detailed report). Of late, Chinese investment in Nepal’s hydropower sector is dwindling, while India has emerged as a dominant player. The Chinese side has been known to express displeasure with the Nepali officials over India’s dominance in Nepal’s energy sector.

For China, the implementation of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Nepal is the key priority area. But there is an unease in Nepal regarding the BRI after China listed Pokhara International Airport as part of the BRI. Nepali ministers have time and again dismissed the Chinese claim, saying that Nepal has yet to execute any project under the BRI.  

Officials say the first priority of Prime Minister Dahal, while talking with Beijing officials, will be to seek China’s concrete position on the BRI. 

Prime Minister Dahal has not spoken much about the BRI in recent days. Previously, he used to say that China should help construct at least one major project as a gift under the BRI.

Tanka Karki, former Nepali ambassador to China, says the prime minister’s imminent China visit should be focused on the implementation of past agreements signed between two countries including the BRI. If there are any problems regarding the implementation of the agreements, Dahal should communicate what those problems are.

The Chinese side has also been stressing the need of implementing the past agreements signed between the two countries during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Nepal visit. But the coalition partners are not on the same page when it comes to engaging with China.

Along with the BRI, China has also been urging Nepal to make commitments on the Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). Experts say the prime minister and government officials should clearly communicate their concerns and positions on these latest initiatives of China, and not rush into signing new agreements. 

There are a lot of agreements from which Nepal can take benefit, says Karki, but the focus should be on their implementation. He is of the view that there is no need of signing new agreements with China when the past agreements have not moved forward. 

Upendra Gautam, general secretary of China Study Center, says Prime Minister Dahal must take China into confidence when it comes to securing Beijing’s core interests, including bilateral territorial security mechanisms for stable trade, transit, transport, agriculture and cultural connectivity. 

Nepal’s longstanding and generally stable ties with China offers Prime Minister Dahal a rare historic opportunity to prove that he is not just a tool in the fractious South Asian politics dominated by India-China rivalry. 

If the prime minister plays his cards right, he can steer Nepal toward the path of prosperity by establishing mutually cooperative and highly reciprocal relationships with immediate neighbors.  

Nepal’s Ambassador to China Bishnu Pukar Shrestha says progress on rail and roadway connectivity are the key priority areas of Nepal which are the bedrock of boosting bilateral trade and investment. 

During Prime Minister Dahal’s China visit, Shrestha says Nepal will request the Chinese side to expedite the China-funded development projects in Nepal. 

He adds signing power trade agreements, increasing Chinese investment and resolving trade bottlenecks are also on the list of priorities. 

Key points for PM Dahal’s China trip

• Projects under BRI
• Bringing Chinese investment
• Implementation of transit and transport agreement
• Connectivity (road and railway)
• Mutual legal assistance
• Power Trade agreement
• Border management
• Removing trade bottlenecks
•  Resumption of joint military drill
• Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative  
• Peace and friendship treaty

In 2014, when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized on the effective implementation of Neighborhood First Policy. Over the past 10 years, it has emerged as a central pillar of India’s overall policy when dealing with its neighbors including Nepal. 

The Indian parliament’s external affairs committee has conducted an in-depth study on the implementation of the policy after consultations with the Ministry of External Affairs and experts, and its report highlights immediate neighbors as “the first circle of priority” in India’s relation with the world. The report also recommends all ministries and departments to approach their engagements with the neighboring countries with a proactive perspective.

According to the committee, the Neighborhood First Policy over the years has achieved benefits like greater regional connectivity, improved infrastructures, stronger development cooperation in various sectors. It has also urged the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure that development projects undertaken in the neighborhood are executed on time by strengthening the joint project monitoring committees and oversight mechanism for monitoring the progress of various development assistance projects.

Only successful implementation of the policy, the report says, requires concerted efforts such as timely execution of development projects and enhancing mutually beneficial cooperation.

The committee has also pointed out the lack of parliamentary exchanges between India and its neighboring countries, which is the key to effective implementation of the Neighborhood First Policy. On open borders, the committee says that anyone who has crossed the border between India’s Uttar Pradesh and Nepal or Bihar and Nepal knows that the cross-border movement is extremely difficult due to the absence of basic infrastructure.  The committee is of the view that India needs to invest massively in upgrading infrastructure—from roads to rail, from land waterways to ports, from energy and telecommunication to digital customs.

Regarding the regional organizations, the committee says that India’s engagement with its neighbors under regional frameworks— such as South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC); Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC); and Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal Motor Vehicle Agreement BBIN— is an important element of India’s Neighborhood First Policy.  

The committee has suggested the Indian government to play a more proactive role both in SAARC and BIMSTEC, and formulate a fresh strategy to keep them active and utilize them whenever the occasion arises. The Modi government, however, is not so keen to revive the SAARC process.

According to the committee’s report, SAARC has a strategic importance, so no member country should be allowed to impede its effective functioning, and that collective efforts need to be made by other member countries to thwart any attempts to destabilize it.

The Indian committee has suggested that the Indian government coordinate among the majority of the member countries ignoring one (Pakistan), so that regional cooperation under SAARC is not hampered due to the lack of the response from one country. 

Addressing the parliament, Union Minister of State for External Affairs Raj Kumar Ranjan Singh recently informed the Indian parliament that India accorded utmost importance to expanding connectivity in its neighborhood and beyond, encompassing all elements of physical, cultural economic and people-to-people linkages. 

India’s Act East Policy, Neighborhood First Policy, Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) and BIMSTEC have strengthened connectivity in the region, he added.

Singh said some of the key connectivity initiatives between India and its neighbors include the BBIN; the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway Initiative; Chabahar Agreement between India, Iran and Afghanistan;, and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor. 

Through Neighborhood First Policy, connectivity, commerce, culture and people-to-people, Singh claimed that linkages with India’s neighbors have been improved.

The Indian parliamentary committee has observed that India’s relations with Nepal have expanded to new initiatives in agriculture, inland waterways, and power sector cooperation.  The Inland waterways between two countries with multi-modal transportation routes via Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh was announced in 2019. Two of the terminals at Varanasi and Sahibgunj have already been completed and work is underway to complete the remaining terminals.

Highlights of the report

• India’s bilateral relations with Nepal have expanded to new initiatives in agriculture, inland waterways, and power sector cooperation. The ‘India Nepal New Partnership’ in Agriculture, which focuses on collaborative projects in agriculture education and R&D, was launched in April 2018.

• The Inland waterways connectivity between India and Nepal with four multi-modal transportation routes via Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh was announced in 2019. Two of the terminals at Varanasi and Sahibgunj have already been completed and work is underway for the completion of remaining terminals.

• The Indian government is in the process of upgrading India-Nepal border trade infrastructure, with an objective to reduce bottlenecks, accelerate clearances and promote the creation of regional economic hubs.

• In view of the importance of cross-border railway link between India and Nepal for strengthening of border infrastructure and greater people to people link, India’s parliament committee for external affairs has urged the Indian government for early operationalization of the ongoing rail link projects and completion of the feasibility study of the proposed Raxaul-Kathmandu broad gauge rail link.

• India’s engagement with its neighbors under regional frameworks like SAARC, BIMSTEC and BBIN is an important element of the Neighborhood First Policy.

• The committee believes while BIMSTEC has emerged as an important regional organization in recent years, not much progress has been made under SAARC due to hurdles created by one member state.

• Though SAARC has made good progress in some areas of cooperation, it has not been able to achieve its full potential as several important connectivity and trade initiatives such as SAARC Motor Vehicle Agreement, SAARC Railways Agreement, Agreement on Regional Air Services, Agreement on Trade in Services, etc. are held up since 2014 due to the lack of consensus among all member states.

• India should take more initiatives for elimination of destabilizing forces like terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, etc. in the region through collective efforts of all neighboring countries.

• The parliamentary committee advises the Indian government to implement the BIMSTEC Master Plan for Transport Connectivity at the earliest.

• The committee is of the opinion that no member country should be allowed to impede the effective functioning of regional forums.

Nepal’s three major political parties—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center)—are currently focused on the task of bolstering their organizational strength. Revival of dormant party organizations and increasing party members have become their priority. To this end, they have come up with their own version of a grassroots campaign. Central-level leaders have been mobilized to various districts to interact with local cadres as well as voters.

These outreach drives of these three parties did not spur from the wisdom of their central leadership. They are rather a result of a clarion call from their ranks and files, who have witnessed their political bases erode almost overnight with the emergence of new political forces, particularly the Rastirya Swatantra Party.

The UML was the first party to reach out to the grassroots soon after the results of last year’s general election were out. According to media reports, the size of UML membership has decreased by nearly 50 percent in recent years, but the party leadership denies this. Leaders say that there was “an artificial increase” in the number of party members during the short-lived merger between the UML and the Maoist Center.

They claim that the UML’s core members remain intact.

The UML leadership has announced to increase the number of its members to one million by the next party convention.
According to Kashi Nath Adhikari, head of the party’s organizational department, along with the membership renewal, scores of new members have joined the UML. Since last year’s election, in which the party retained its third position, the UML is continuously focusing on building the party base, with central leaders reaching to the local level for cadre training and organization strengthening purposes.

Besides Adhikari’s words, the UML has not presented any metrics to accurately determine whether the party’s grassroots campaign was a success or a failure.

The Nepali Congress, which emerged as the largest party in last year’s elections, has also launched a nationwide campaign. In order to win the hearts and minds of people, the NC has adopted a two-pronged strategy of resolving the internal issues of the party and addressing the concerns of common people. The party leadership has instructed its central leaders to form a “service force” at each local level to address the problems faced by the people. By setting up these service forces, the NC hopes to attract youths to the party.

The NC leadership came up with such a plan amid complaints that the leaders and cadres at the local level have not been paying attention to the problems faced by common people. It was also largely prompted by the initiatives launched by the RSP to facilitate public access to various services including government-related works.

NC leader Nain Singh Mahar says the main challenge as well as priority of the party right now is to reconnect with the common people. He admits that the party for long has been focused on political issues, barely paying attention to the plights of ordinary people. 

The CPN (Maoist Center) has also announced a special grassroots campaign through its recently concluded central committee meeting to revive the party.

The Maoists support base and organizational strength pale in comparison to the NC and UML. So the party chairman and prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, has directed the party leaders to reach out to every household across the country to connect with the people. Dahal himself has announced that he would be traveling to every ward of all seven provinces to rally support for the party.

After completion of the campaign, the party plans to organize a policy convention probably in November to shape the party’s ideology. 

Despite being in power, the Maoist party is progressively becoming weaker since 2013. In order to strengthen the party, Dahal is even planning to unite with other fringe communist forces and Maoist splinter groups.
Political observers say campaigns launched by the three major parties to connect with the masses are a direct outcome of the RSP’s meteoric rise.

The RSP’s popularity is undeniable and the three major parties feel threatened. If this groundswell of support for the RSP continues to sustain until the next election season, the party could very well sweep the polls.
At the moment, the three major parties are in no position of contesting the election alone.

Agni Prasad Sapkota, Maoist Spokesperson: We will be launching a three-month campaign to revive the party organization which is a final test of our party. I am fully optimistic that we will pass this test because it is a matter of all party leaders and cadres. We will reach every ward across the country to re-energize our party structures. We will launch the program from September 10.

Madhu Acharya, NC leader:  I think our Central Working Committee did not take sufficient measures to reform party organization and shape ideology, policy and program. Instead of fixing the date of the policy convention, the party leadership decided to hold the Mahasamiti meeting, and we are making preparations accordingly. We will reach out to the people as per the decision of the party leadership.

Deepak Prakash Bhatta, UML leader: After the general elections, we diagnosed the organizational problems within the party. The UML party organization was in a mess after the unification with the Maoists in 2018. We have identified the problems now and are in the process of resolving them. We are also planning to hold the district- and provincial-level conventions. The party has also appointed the in-charge in each of the seven provinces for organizational rebuilding.

In 2016, Nepal-India relations were at one of their all time lows because of India’s economic blockade. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kamal Thapa, frequently traveled to India to convince the Indian side to lift the blockade which had severely affected life in Nepal.

In one of the meetings with his Indian counterpart, Sushma Swaraj, Thapa had proposed forming a panel on Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG), as agreed by the two countries in 2014, to seek experts’ suggestions to settle the long-standing issues between Nepal and India, including the revision of the 1960 Treaty of Peace and Friendship to reflect the present day realities.

Former foreign minister Thapa shared such information while speaking at a program organized by Tanka Prasad Acharya Memorial Foundation on Friday.

Initially, recalls Thapa, Swaraj was reluctant to form such a panel as the bilateral ties between the two countries were going through a rocky patch, but she agreed eventually. The Nepali side announced its EPG members, all of them picked by Thapa without consulting major political parties and stakeholders.

The names were endorsed by the Cabinet of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Former Nepali ambassador to India, Nilambar Acharya, remembers Thapa calling him one evening and asking him to become an EPG member. Acharya asked Thapa for some time to think about the offer, but the latter insisted that the decision had to be made right then and there.

Though it was an expert panel, there were no experts representing the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Center) and Madhes-based parties. Still, the non-represented parties had no issue with the formation of the EPG, as most of the members were non-political figures. The only politician in the EPG, Nepal, was Rajan Bhattarai of the CPN-UML. From India, it was Bhagat Singh Koshiyari of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

In 2018, the EPG prepared its report with its suggestions to the governments of Nepal and India. But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to receive the report. This turndown essentially halted the progress of the EPG report.  During his India visit in May this year, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal did not raise the EPG issue with Prime Minister Modi lest it should spoil the improving relationship between Nepal and India.

Former Prime Minister and UML leader Oli is probably the only leader who has been consistently and publicly speaking about the importance of the EPG report. Other political parties, mainly the NC and Maoist, seem to have no interest in the issue. 

In a public program on Saturday, Oli said that the Nepal-India relations should move ahead “as per the suggestions provided by the EPG report.” He said the report will serve as a prescription to push forward the ties between the two countries.

It has been more than five years since the EPG report was prepared, and the chances of it moving ahead are slim. Already, discussions have begun on what to do with the report.  Thapa, the former foreign minister, has suggested that members submit the report to Nepali side and close the chapter on the whole issue. As the report has already submitted its report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nepal, it can be argued that the EPG has no legal existence.  

There are some people who are demanding that the report must be made public at least, if the two governments are not ready to receive it. EPG Nepal coordinator Thapa says he holds the key to the cupboard where the report has been stored and he has been trying to hand it over to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

He adds being the keeper of the report has become a huge burden for him.There are multiple reasons behind the sorry state of the EPG report. First one, obviously, is the composition of the EPG without representations from major political parties.

 But there are those who argue that since the EPG was a panel of experts, there was no need for a party-wise representation. The only thing lacking, they say, is the consensus of parties and involvement of major political actors. The NC, Maoists and Madhes-based parties are not willing to take ownership of the EPG report.

It should also be noted that the Indian side was never in favor of forming a panel for the purpose of, among other things, suggesting revision to the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty. Several issues that the EPG was dealing with were heavily politicized.

Experts reiterate that there should be a national consensus for the EPG report to move ahead.

Though the report is yet to be made public, the Indian side has expressed dissatisfaction over some provisions that were leaked through the media.

The document has recommended establishing smart borders in order to limit the seamless cross-border movement. In 2018, The Wire reported:  “EPG has suggested that a technology-driven structure should be put in place for monitoring the movement along the international boundary, with identity cards as the mode of registration.”

Another point that the Nepal side has proposed is ensuring full independence to purchase arms and ammunition from third countries. To this end, Nepal is intending to change the Article 5 of Treaty which says: “The Government of Nepal shall be free to import from or through the territory of India, arms, ammunition or war-like materials and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal.”

This provision provides full right to Nepal to import arms but protocol to the Nepal-India Treaty of Transit states that “arms, ammunition and hazardous cargo shall not be allowed to be transported by road.” Similarly, Nepal-India Railway Agreement is not sufficient to allow the transit of arms and ammunition from India, experts say.

Similarly, the letter of exchange to this treaty bars Nepal’s independent right to import arms and ammunition from India. The paragraph-2 of Letter of Exchange says: “Any arms, ammunition or war-like material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal that the Government of Nepal may import through the territory of India shall be so imported with the assistance and agreement of the government of India.

 The government of India will take steps for the smooth and expeditious transport of such arms and ammunition through India.” Nepal prefers to scrap both Article 5 and Letter of Exchange with a view that it is fully independent to import arms and other equipment as per its need.

 The 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty had also changed a similar clause in the 1949 version. The new treaty says that Bhutan can import arms as long as Indian interests are not harmed and there is no re-export of the weapons, either by the government or individuals.

Article 6 and 7 in the current treaty encompass the issue of “national treatment” and equal privileges for citizens on each other’s soil. While the spirit has been preserved to an extent, the EPG members have apparently backed Nepal’s position that the Himalayan republic should be able to institute more protection for its own citizens due to the asymmetry in size and economy between the two neighbors.

Nepal is of the view that such provisions are disadvantageous to a small country like Nepal, and given its population, economy and size, it cannot offer equal treatment to Indian citizens in Nepal.  Another bone of contention between the two countries is Article 2 of the treaty that states: “The two governments hereby undertake to inform each other of any serious frictions or misunderstanding with any neighboring state likely to cause any breach in the friendly relations subsisting between the two governments.” 

 Nepal is of the view that as this provision is not implemented, it is better to scrap. There has been war between India and Pakistan and India and China since the signing of the treaty, but India has not informed Nepal of the tensions.  Similarly, there has not been any military alliances between the two countries. 

Academicians and policy-makers in New Delhi say that India sought Nepal’s favor when there was Doklam crisis in 2017, and Nepal may be asked to take side by India if there is escalating tensions between two countries in coming days. Since the 1962 China-India war, Nepal has maintained a neutral position vis-à-vis India-China conflict and war.

 Along with these key provisions, Nepal has proposed to make changes in several other provisions of bilateral treaties and agreements in trade, transit and other areas, but Nepal’s major concern is the 1950 treaty. 

The main purpose behind the formation of EPG was to suggest ways on how to amend the treaty. There are also views on whether it was prudent to form a panel like the EPG to deal with sensitive issues between two countries.

 Some experts say the two countries should have instead formed government-level mechanisms to work out the outstanding issues, which they can still do with national political consensus.