Submit your Article

India, China and the US have stepped up their engagements with Nepal in recent months. There has been a series of diplomatic exchanges and visits to and from these countries, which some foreign affairs experts say is unprecedented.  But these are unprecedented times. China-US rivalry for global supremacy is at an all-time high. India, meanwhile, has its own set of security and economic concerns as its influence in South Asia, its old stomping ground, is fast waning due to China’s aggressive economic diplomacy.   Nepal is in a tight spot as it seeks to maintain a balanced relations with India, China and the US all at the same time, says Arun Subedi, foreign affairs advisor to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba “China’s expectations, for instance, have gone up recently. It is seeking our support in the South China Sea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other issues,” he says.  Recently, China’s top legislature Li Zhanshu spent four days in Nepal. During his stay, he met with Nepali leaders and discussed a wide range of issues.  China’s concern that Nepal is tilting towards the West, particularly under the current leadership of the Nepali Congress, is no secret. It is also obvious that Beijing wants to implant a strong foothold in Kathmandu. One of his key agendas of Li’s recent visit was inking an agreement that allows cooperation between Nepal’s parliament and China’s National People’s Congress, a rubber stamp parliament of China.  From the Nepali leaders, the top Chinese leader got the oft-repeated reassurance that they are committed to ‘One China’ policy, that they won’t allow Nepali soil to be used for any anti-China activities. Soon after Li’s visit, Chinese state media Xinhua reported that Nepal supports China’s position on Taiwan and Xinjiang.  “He [Li] thanked the Nepalese side for unswervingly adhering to the One-China principle, and supporting China's position on the Taiwan question and issues concerning Tibet, Xinjiang and human rights,” wrote Xinhua. The Deuba government is reportedly unhappy with what was reported by the Chinese media, for it has the potential of causing rifts with India and the US.    Earlier, Chinese Ambassador to Nepal Hou Yanqi had written an article stating that Nepal actively supports the Global Development Initiative and China’s Global Security Initiatives. Then, too, the Nepal government was put ill at ease.  But on both occasions, the government made no effort to clarify the matter.  Deuba’s foreign affairs advisor Subedi, who is known to be critical of Chinese policies, is of the view that Nepal should revisit its long-standing non-alignment policy to get out from the current diplomatic tangle involving multiple parties. Foreign policy experts say for Kathmandu, maintaining a balanced ties with the US and China has become more of a demanding job than between India and China in recent times.   The dust-up between Beijing and Washington over whether Nepal should or should not join the US-sponsored Millennium Corporation Challenge and State Partnership Program show how deep Kathmandu is caught up in the geopolitical rivalry of these two giants. Amid growing tensions between China and US, India too has stepped up its engagements with Nepal and other South Asian countries, like Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka, to retain its traditional sphere of influence.  Time and again, India has voiced its concern regarding China’s flagship Belt and Road Initiative, warning that it is a debt trap diplomacy that upended Sri Lanka’s economy.  All the while Nepal’s leadership is caught in a paralyzing indecision on matters vital to the country’s foreign policy. One of the major reasons for this indecision is the divergent views, ideology and priority within the ruling five-party coalition.  The Nepali Congress has historically supported India and the West. The CPN (Maoist Center), on the other hand, is more inclined towards China. Political analysts say you get indecisive when parties with diametrically opposite ideologies are placed in the governing seat. If this situation persists, they say future projects by big countries in Nepal can easily plunge into a controversy.  Rajan Bhattarai, foreign affairs advisor to former prime minister KP Sharma Oli, blames the current government for failing to maintain a balanced relationship with China, India and the US.  “This government has taken the approach of appeasing one power at the cost of antagonizing the other,” he says. “If we do not correct the course, the balance will tip irrevocably.”   A source at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers says the government has been facing increasing pressures from Beijing, New Delhi and Washington.   “They are taking the liberty of issuing press statements saying that Nepal supports some specific agendas or projects.” The source adds like India did in the past, now China and the US are trying to dictate how Nepal should conduct its foreign policy.   Experts on political affairs and foreign relations say Nepali leadership should stop giving into diplomatic arm-twisting by the forign powers and come up with a clear roadmap to engage with them.    Don McLain Gill,  a Philippines-based geopolitical analyst and author specializing in Indo-Pacific affairs, says small states must be able to provide major powers with a less ambiguous roadmap of engagement without fearing the loss of support from either state. “This does not mean that small states should seek to disturb the balance. Rather, they should aim to maintain the status quo without further exacerbating the balance of power,” he says. “This will provide them with a more conducive environment for growth, development, and security.”   In the era of great power competition, they say smaller countries like Nepal, there is not much that small countries can do, says Zhiqun Zhu, professor of political science and international relations as well as the inaugural director of the China Institute, at Bucknell University, US. “The best strategy for small countries in South Asia and elsewhere is perhaps to focus on domestic development and not get involved in the great power rivalry.”  And if some small countries prefer to be more vocal, he says: “Perhaps, they can learn from Singapore and tell the two great powers to not force them to choose sides and resolve their differences peacefully.”

During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Nepal in 2019, Nepal and China agreed to kick-start exchanges and cooperation at the legislative-level.   Three years later, Li Zhanshu, speaker of the National People’s Congress, visited Nepal  to sign a document of collaboration. Speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota and his Chinese counterpart Li signed a six-point understanding, paving the way to operationalize the cooperation between the two parliaments.   The two sides underscored the role of parliamentary friendship groups between two countries to promote goodwill.  On the occasion, the Chinese speaker also pledged to provide all kinds of support to the Parliament.  This gesture from Beijing was part of its broader policy of engaging with all sections of society, a departure from its previous policy which was limited only in some areas. After the abolition of the monarchy in Nepal in 2008, China managed to penetrate all political parties of Nepal but not the parliament—not until Xi’s visit, that is.   The joint press statement issued by the two governments after Xi’s visit stated: The two sides agreed to maintain the momentum of high-level visits, deepen political mutual trust, and expand exchanges and cooperation between government ministries, departments, legislatures, and political parties at all levels. In Chinese foreign policy, follow-up of Xi’s visit gets the topmost priority.  A Chinese professor, who provides input to the Chinese government, says through parliamentary collaboration, China wants to counter western and European influence in Nepal’s law-making process.   The professor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, adds it is not just in Nepal, China is expanding its footprint in the parliament of South Asian countries to minimize the influence of western power. “Li may have encouraged  left parties for the alliance and unity but his primary purpose is to engage with Parliament,” he says. “There was the least chance of such an agreement if the speaker was from other parties than the Maoist party.” Chandra Dev Bhatta, a geopolitical analyst, says the endorsement of Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) of the US may have created a sense of urgency for China to engage with Nepali parliamentarians, but it seems preparations and homework was going on for a long time.  There are many countries, including America and Britain, which are already engaging with Nepali parliamentarians through visits and experience exchanges.  India which briefly initiated inter-country parliamentary exchange in 2016 has been halted.   Bhatta says there is a possibility of China proposing to form a caucus in Nepal’s parliament bringing the like-minded parties together to push forward its agenda.   On the surface, there is not much scope for collaboration between the parliaments of the two countries. Nepal is adopting a parliamentary democracy, while China is a one-party communist which dominates parliamentary affairs.  But former speaker of Parliament, Daman Nath Dhungana says there are two schools of thought regarding the parliamentary collaboration between two countries.  “One group is of the view that there are hardly any spaces for collaboration, given the different natures of the political system and parliament of the two countries,” he says. “And the other group, meanwhile, maintain that parliamentary collaboration is an aspect of bilateral relations the two countries should explore.” China is already actively engaging with the parliament of some countries through Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), a small group of parliamentarians established in 1889 that currently has 178 members and 14 associate members. China’s National People’s Congress is helping the IPU to implement Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).   In the six-point deal, the two countries have agreed to collaborate on IPU as well. Other than Nepal, China has also approached other South Asian countries for parliamentary collaboration.  In July, Li held talks with Bangladeshi parliament speaker Sharmin Chaudhury, where both sides vowed to enhance parliamentary exchanges.  In Pakistan, there is already such collaboration in the form of the Pakistan-China Friendship Group.  Similarly, talks are also underway between Sri Lanka and China to forge a similar agreement.

The relations between heads of state and governments of Nepal were never smooth between 1990 and 2008. The erstwhile kings exercised their substantial discretionary powers to make or break governments, while wantonly undermining the principle of check and balance. Nepal became a republic in 2008 after overthrowing the 240-year-old monarchy. A ceremonial president replaced the monarch as the head of state. The president was expected to play a complementary role for smooth functioning of government. But the relationship between the president’s office and government morphed into something more twisted. Some constitutional experts and political analysts say the decision of political parties to pick a presidential candidate from among themselves has not worked well for the country.  They say the Office of the President is caught in partisanship.  “There must be a harmonious relationship between the president’s office and government for effective functioning of the parliamentary system,” says constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari. It did not take long for the relationship between the president and prime minister of the newly republic Nepal to unravel. The first president was a former Nepali Congress leader, Ram Baran Yadav, and occupying the executive chair was Pushpa Kamal Dahal, a former Maoist rebel leader whose party had just entered peaceful politics. In 2009, Dahal stepped down following a dispute with Yadav over the unceremonious sacking of the then Nepal Army chief, Rookmangud Katawal. Yadav’s presidency lasted until 2015. He was succeeded by current President Bidya Devi Bhandari, a former CPN-UML leader. Bhandari’s presidency has been a more fraught one than her predecessor. During the premiership of UML chair KP Oli from 2018 to 2021, there was a semblance of cordiality between the offices of the prime minister and the president. But it became apparent that this harmony was born out of President Bhandari’s allegiance to her former party and its leader. The Office of the President came under public and media scrutiny for swiftly endorsing any decision taken by the KP Oli administration, no matter how unpopular or out of line including the one to dissolve the democratically elected House of Representatives.  And when the Supreme Court ousted Oli as the prime minister and appointed Deuba to the post in July 2021, the President was reportedly unhappy with the verdict. She was of the view that as the head of the state, the responsibility of appointing a new prime minister was her jurisdiction. Then there was a dispute over the text of the oath that had failed to mention the constitutional provision under which Deuba was appointed.  The current issue on the bill to Citizenship Act has once again pitted the Office of the President against the government after President Bhandari sent back the bill to the federal parliament, asking to reconsider some of its provisions. The back and forth of the bill between Parliament and the Office of the President has raised concerns about Bhandari’s motive. She has, to date, refused to authenticate the bill passed by both houses of Parliament.     There are rumors that the President’s action or lack thereof concerning the citizenship amendment bill is guided by the main opposition, UML.  The ruling five-party alliance has threatened to move court if Bhandari refuses to approve the bill.  Tika Dhakal, an advisor to Bhandari, says the President had sent back the citizenship amendment bill to Parliament and not the executive, as she had some concerns regarding some of the provisions. “First, the five-party meeting in Baluwatar snubbed the President’s concerns before the President's concerns were formally registered in the Parliament Secretariat,” says Dhakal. “Then Parliament too made the mistake by not addressing the President’s concerns.” The Office of the President is of the view that Article 81 of the constitution obliges the government to inform vital decisions to the President. Dhakal says Prime Minister Deuba did not honor the constitutional provision of informing the President about the bill.  “The Office of the Prime Minister also did not consult with the President on the transitional justice bill,” adds Dhakal. “The President had to invite Law Minister Govinda Bandi to get a briefing on the bill.” But constitutional expert Adhikari says President Bhandari cannot hold private meetings with ministers or any other officials of the state agencies without first consulting the prime minister.  “Yes, the constitution compels the executive to appraise the head of state on vital national issues..” Reports are that President Bhandari has several disagreements with the current dispensation. The issue of the citizenship amendment bill is the one that has spilled out in public.  Dhakal, however, argues that there is a clear distinction between a bill and an ordinance, which the media and political parties failed to tell the public. “While the President cannot delay the authentication of an ordinance because it should be presented in Parliament within two months and the people’s elected body takes a final decision,” he says. “The President, however, has the right to send back a bill to Parliament for reconsideration.” Another official at the Office of the President agrees that Bhandari has not blocked the ordinance forwarded by the government. “When the Deuba government came up with the ordinance allowing a political split if there is the support of just 20 percent of its central committee members, President Bhandari endorsed it without any qualms because she was constitutionally obliged to do so.” Adhikari warns that the trust deficit between the head of state and government will be deleterious to the country’s stability. “In parliamentary democracy, it is the decision of the executive that prevails.”  He adds if the President has any thoughts, opinions, or issues on any matter, it should be shared with the prime minister, while the latter should also do the same.

The CPN-UML has concluded that it should be ready to contest the Nov 20 elections to the federal parliament and provincial assemblies alone. Earlier, the main opposition had expected the five-party ruling coalition to break up, paving the way for a leftist alliance like in the 2017 elections. In a recently concluded Central Committee meeting of the UML, Chairman KP Sharma Oli said: “Now that there is no chance of a split in the five-party coalition, we have to launch a campaign to bring back our cadres from other parties.” He was talking about the party cadres who had defected to the breakaway party, CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal. Dozens of Unified Socialist have returned to the mother party. The number is expected to increase as the election date draws closer. The UML’s principal strategy is to weaken the CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist)—major partners in the five-party ruling coalition led by the Nepali Congress (NC). Oli sees the two leftist parties’ allying with the Congress as a hindrance to his party’s electoral ambitions. The same alliance had wrested many UML seats in the local level polls this past May. Oli reckons the only way to preclude the five-party alliance from snatching up the UML’s constituencies is by weakening the Maoists and the Unified Socialist. In order to exhaust the five-party alliance, the UML may join hands with fringe forces in some of the constituencies, but there are no chances of large-scale alliance. UML general secretary Shankar Pokharel says the party is “investing no more time and energy to materialize electoral alliance” but there could be seat-sharing in some constituencies. While the five-party alliance is engaged in intense seat-sharing negotiations for the November polls, the UML has already hit the ground running.  The party has formed a 151-member Central Election Mobilization Committee under Oli and plans to form a similar committee at the grassroots level. Oli also leads the committee mandated to prepare the party's election manifesto. The UML is in a similar situation that the NC was faced in 2017 when all communist parties banded together against the grand old democratic party. Though Oli has been telling the UML rank and file that the party would emerge the ultimate victor, the party leaders know they have to mount quite a battle. Some party leaders say it is a “do-or-die” matter. In the worst-case scenario, they fear, the UML will secure around 70 seats in the House of Representatives. Still, second-rung leaders in the UML including Ghanashyam Bhusal are willing to pull out all the stops to form a broader left alliance. He told the party’s Central Committee meeting recently that with a strong electoral alliance among the left forces, the party could win 150 out of the 165 first-past-the-post seats in the 275-member House. Bhusal is of the view that the UML and other major parties to the left of center should issue a white paper owning up to their past mistakes to regain voters’ trust. “Without the alliance,” says Bhusal, “the parties on the left are at risk of becoming the combined loser.” However, UML Chairman Oli is unwilling to make any compromise with Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Unified Socialist or Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the Maoist Center. He believes the wrangling over sharing of seats among the five-party alliance would downsize the strength of Congress, the UML’s main rival. In his political document, Oli has said that the party lacks only 16 percent seats to secure a parliament majority. Due to the electoral alliance among five parties, he believes the NC will likely contest for around 80 seats, triggering dissatisfaction inside the party and consequently, rival candidacy. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s rival faction in the Congress, led by Shekhar Koirala, could field separate candidates if it fails to get a respectable share in the elections. In that case, there could be an undeclared alliance in some constituencies between UML and the NC’s Koirala faction. Koirala and Oli held a long meeting about the elections only recently. There are fears of intra-party betrayal within the UML as well.  A study conducted by the UML suggests that the party lost around 60 local government seats due to intra-party rift in the May 13 local polls. The UML is not as united as it appears to be. The leaders who opposed Oli’s move to dissolve parliament in 2020 have been alienated within the party. To placate the disaffected UML leaders and members, the party has launched a separate campaign to strengthen the organizational unity across the country. It has also decided to take strict measures to address the problem of rival candidates. UML says its popular votes stand at 34 percent, NC’s 33 percent and remaining parties hold 8-10 percent. Though Oli remains a popular leader within his party, his image among the voters has significantly declined. “There are obviously some challenges for the UML, as the party will be fighting against the five-party alliance,” says UML leader Deepak Prakash Bhatta. In 2018, Oli led a powerful government in the country’s modern political history but he was ousted from power by the Supreme Court order in 2021, following his attempt to dissolve the democratically elected parliament. Political analyst Bishnu Dahal says the UML is in a difficult position as it is pitted against the five-party alliance, which is expected to fare well in the elections. “The UML also does not have any saleable agenda like in the 2017 elections,” says Dahal. “The issues of nationalism and boundaries are not going to sway the voters this time.” He says the UML will essentially be competing for the second or third position with the Maoist Center. Only time will tell whether Oli’s gambit will pay off.

President Bidya Devi Bhandari conferred the honorary rank of general of the Nepal Army to the Indian Army chief Manoj Pandey during an investiture ceremony on September 5.  The armies of two countries have been honoring each other’s generals with the title since the 1950s, which reflects close ties between them. Pandey’s visit was a routine one but it came on the heels of the controversy over the Agnipath military scheme launched by the Indian government Though Agnipath was not on the official agenda of Pandey’s Nepal visit, the two sides might have discussed at an informal level, officials say. During his Nepal visit, Pandey held bilateral talks with his Nepali counterpart Prabhu Ram Sharma. The duo exchanged views on issues of mutual interests and discussed measures to strengthen the existing bond of friendship and cooperation between the two countries.  Experts say exchange of visits between the army chiefs of two neighboring countries provide an opportunity to discuss a range of bilateral issues, as well as ensure regular dialogue at the top political level and help clear the misunderstandings that emerge from time to time.  Over the past seven decades, there have been several ups and downs between Nepal and India at the political level, but the military relations have remained cordial, says retired India Army Lt. Gen. Shokin Chauhan. “The excellent relationship between the two armies is one of the cornerstones of Nepal-India ties,” he says.  Many Nepal Army soldiers undergo military courses in India. There are also a large number of Nepalis who are serving or have served in the Indian Army.  Strategic affairs analyst Binoj Basnyat says one of the important factors in the Nepal-India relations is their security relationship.  “The military ties form the centerpiece of a broad security relationship between Nepal and India,” he says. “This relationship is even more important in the fast-changing geopolitical context.”  India has also been one of the major donors and suppliers of military hardware and software to Nepal since the 1950s. During his Nepal visit this week, the Indian Army chief also handed over medical equipment, mine protected vehicles and maintenance equipment, among other items, to the NA.  Besides, the two countries’ armies also meet regularly to discuss issues related to security concerns, capacity building, and security requirements under the Bilateral Consultative Group on Security Issues (BCGSI). The 14th meeting of BCGSI was held on 28 October 2021, in Bengaluru, India. The Nepal-India joint military exercise, Surya Kiran, is also conducted every year.  Robust military relations between the two countries have contributed to making an environment of trust at the top political level. When the relationship between the two countries soured in 2020 over the new political map of Nepal, the visit of then Indian Army chief MM Naravane had played a pivotal role to open the line of of communication between the two countries.  “His visit created a conducive atmosphere, thus soothing the minor hiccups faced due to the recently flared up Kalapani border issue,” retired Indian Army Capt. Avinash Chhetry writes in his paper “Decoding Indo-Nepal Relations from the Prism of Indian Military Diplomacy” published in 2021.  General Naravane’s visit came soon after the visit of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief to Nepal. Chhetry described the even as “an increasing synergy between the intelligence and defense wings” on an issue that predominantly belonged to the Ministry of External Affairs.  It was an evidence of “the emerging role of military in the diplomatic space”.  During the 2015 Indian blockade, too, the armies of the two countries had played a vital role to resume movement of goods across Nepal-India border. After the blockade created a humanitarian crisis in Nepal, the NA dispatched an informal team to New Delhi to talk with the army officials.  Chhetry says the then Indian Army chief Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag held a series of talks at the highest level of political hierarchy to restore normalcy in the border areas. Chhetry says visit exchanges between the armies of India and Nepal are not just restricted at the highest level but at multiple tiers to ensure that the special bond between the two countries are alive.  Chauhan agrees with Chhetry. When King Gyanendra took over the power in Nepal in 2005, he says, the Indian Army had stopped supplying lethal weapons to Nepal.  “But the armies of the two countries were in constant communication,” he adds. 

The five-party ruling coalition is busy working out an electoral alliance modality for the Nov 20 polls to the federal parliament and the seven provincial assemblies. Each party in the coalition is driving a hard bargain to secure the maximum number of seats in the 275-member lower house of the federal parliament. Altogether 165 house seats (60 percent) are up for grabs under the first-past-the-post voting system. But dividing the seats is proving to be a tough job. Among the coalition partners, the Nepali Congress (NC) wants at least 100 seats and the CPN (Maoist Center) is aiming for a minimum of 60 seats. Similarly, the Madhav Kumar Nepal-led CPN (Unified Socialist) wishes to secure 40 seats in the lower house, while the remaining fringe parties are together angling for 30 seats. NC leader Shekhar Koirala recently said his party cannot go below 100 seats, even though such a compromise is a must if the ruling parties are to contest as allies. The electoral alliance has become a priority for the top leaders of major ruling parties not just to beat the KP Oli-led CPN-UML, the main opposition known for its strong organization and support base. They also harbor ambitions of occupying high state bodies. It is no secret that Congress President and current Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba wishes to be elected to the post of the country’s executive head for the sixth time. He became prime minister for the fifth time last July following the Supreme Court verdict to unseat Oli. Maoist Chairman Dahal, already a two-time prime minister, has also expressed his interest in occupying the top seat again. Baburam Bhattarai, who recently formed Nepal Samajbadi Party after severing ties with the Janata Samajbadi, as well as Madhav Kumar Nepal, the leader of Unified Socialist, have also already served as prime ministers. In the UML, Oli is the uncontested prime ministerial candidate, also having already occupied the office thrice between 2015 and 2021. The electoral alliance more or less serves the interests of the old party guards who want to remain in power. Some young leaders of major parties are ready to contest elections alone, come what may. Their focus is to strengthen party organization rather than joining forces with ideologically incompatible parties to get to power. But it is the senior and aging leaders who call the shots. Political analysts and pundits say the November elections will likely re-elect the same leaders who have been in power for decades as party leaders are unlikely to distribute election tickets to new candidates, women and representatives of marginalized groups. Preference will be given to the candidates close to senior party leaders, says Mina Poudel, a political analyst. “Even if there are women and marginalized community candidates in the fray, they will be relatives and henchmen of senior leaders,” she says. UML has decided not to repeat the candidates who were defeated in the previous elections or those selected under the proportional representation (PR) electoral system. Senior party leaders, many of them above 70 and well past their prime, are sure to get tickets. NC’s Deuba, who has been contesting from Dadeldhura since 1990s, will be vying from the same constituency again. The same logic applies to other Congress leaders such as Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Ram Chandra Poudel, as well as senior leaders of other political parties including Dahal, Nepal, Bhattarai, Jhala Nath Khanal, Mahantha Thakur, Bam Dev Gautam and Kamal Thapa. These leaders are willing to go to any length to ensure their victory. Bhattarai, for example, severed ties with the Yadav faction of the Janata Samajbadi, went on to form a new party and with the elections looming, approached the Maoist Center, his old party, for an electoral alliance. Gautam, the former UML leader, has also reached out to the Maoist Center to secure a parliamentary seat. The top priority for senior party leaders, analysts say, is to ensure their own victory and then to hand out election tickets to their close supporters. Young leaders and cadres don’t like the reliance of the party leadership on electoral alliance. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Congress. The party saw the emergence of many rival candidates during the local level elections held in May after many qualified local-level leaders were denied election tickets because of the alliance calculus. Nain Singh Mahar, a Congress leader close to Deuba, admits that his party is in a tough situation. He says the party will have rival candidates even if it decides to field candidates in all 165 direct election seats. “If we go into elections as a part of the alliance, we expect to be allocated 90 to 100 seats. In that case, there is a little chance of young leaders getting to contest elections,” says Mahar. “On the one hand, we cannot break the alliance and on the other, this alliance will rile many young leaders.” In 2017, the NC fought elections alone against the UML-Maoist left alliance, resulting in what was a historic drubbing. Even though the party was alone in the fray, there were rival NC candidates in more than a dozen constituencies. With or without the alliance, the leadership of major parties has never favored fresh candidates, or women or people from marginalized communities for that matter. The constitution makes it mandatory for parties to appoint 33 percent women while selecting candidates under the FPTP and PR categories. But youth and woman candidates were few and far between under the FPTP category in the 2017 elections. Only six women candidates were elected under the FPTP category—while 84 were elected under the PR category. Bal Krishna Mahuhang, associate professor at Tribhuvan University, says top leaders of major parties have never been serious about making the parliament an inclusive body. “They prefer to have the same-old set of leaders in the driving seat,” he says.

Nepal-China border points have never been fully functional since the 2015 earthquakes. After the quakes severely damaged the road and other infrastructure at Tatopani, the busiest border point between the two countries, it took four years for it to reopen, but even then only partially.  The Rasuwagadi-Kerung border came into operation in 2014 but due to lack of infrastructure and other reasons, it failed to serve as an alternative to Tatopani crossing, as China had planned.   Then Covid-19 pandemic struck in 2019. What little movement of goods that was taking place following the disastrous 2015 earthquakes came to a grinding halt.  Officials suspect China closed the Tatopani border mainly out of security concerns and the earthquake was just a pretext. Soon after the disaster struck Nepal, Chinese security personnel had come to assist Nepali villagers in border areas. It is said the security personnel saw pictures of the Dalai Lama hanging in Nepali houses, which alarmed them.  Tatopani Bazar, an important business hub for Chinese goods, was subsequently relocated. Once a bustling trading post is now deserted. Although the Tatopani border did come into operation in 2019, it was restricted to the movements of cargo trucks to curb the spread of Covid-19. To this day, only limited cargo is allowed into Nepal from the border point, hitting Nepal’s exports to China and contributing to a swelling trade imbalance.  The Chinese side has yet to clearly spell out why the movements of goods to Nepal from its border points are being restricted.  Domestically, the Beijing government has taken a zero-Covid policy under which it has introduced some draconian measures, such as strict and targeted lockdowns irrespective of their consequences. It has adopted strict measures with not just Nepal but all its neighboring countries. A surge in Covid-19 cases has been recently reported in several cities of Tibet, forcing the government to enforce strict lockdowns. Dozens of Nepali trades have tested positive for the infection and they are stranded in Tibet, as the border points have been completely closed for the past two weeks.  Bishnu Pukar Shrestha, Nepali ambassador to China, says Beijing has pledged to ease restrictions when Covid-19 subsides.   “The Chinese side has communicated that they have locked down major cities in Tibet, so it will take some time for things to normalize,” he says. The complete opening of the Nepal-China border points is not going to happen in the immediate future. This was made clear by the Chinese officials to Foreign Minister Narayan Khadka during his China visit on Aug 8-10. With the festive season approaching, Nepali traders are growing impatient. Ashok Kumar Shrestha, Chairman, Nepal Trans Himalaya Border Commerce Association, says businesses have been badly hit as the Nepal-China border points have not been fully operational in the past seven years. “The Chinese side has been releasing only a limited number of cargo trucks,” he says. “Surely, there must be reasons beyond Covid-19 for this.” Around 200 cargo trucks bearing goods bound for Nepal are stranded on the Chinese side. On Aug 29, a delegation of Nepali traders submitted a letter to the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies with a request to take immediate measures to ease border restrictions. Expectations were high when Nepal and China signed the Transit and Transport Agreement in 2016 following the blockade imposed by India in 2015. The general feeling was that Nepal would no longer have to depend only on India to bring in foreign goods. But since the signing of the agreement six years ago, there have been continuous obstructions on the movement of goods across Nepal-China border points.  Nepal’s trade and commerce relations with China are deteriorating, not improving as was expected during the agreement’s signing. Nepali traders have been expressing their concerns, to no avail. The Chinese side has time and again reiterated that the border points will come into full operation after the Covid-19 crisis is over. It has offered no timeline and no hope to the distraught traders.  Foreign relations experts say as China is reluctant to open up about its concerns and fully operationalize its border points, Nepali officials should find out what is bothering Beijing and try to address the situation. Upendra Gautam, general secretary of China Study Center Nepal, says Nepal should not hesitate to ask China if there are other issues beyond Covid-19 restricting the movement of goods into Nepal. “For China, security is more important than trade and economy,” Gautam adds. He is of the view that the two countries should have an honest talk on the matter.  “China’s restrictions at the Tatopani and other border points follow from security concerns,” says an official with the Ministry of Industry who does not wish to be identified.    Like Gautam, he too is in favor of the two governments engaging in frank discussions to fully operate the border points. 

Despite objections from the conflict victims, the international community, and the main opposition CPN-UML, the government seems intent on endorsing the bill to amend the Enforced Disappearance Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act 2014. The bill was tabled in Parliament on August 23. The rights activists see the new bill are designed to grant amnesty to those involved in serious human rights violations, torture, and rape. It incorporates terms like ‘murder’ and ‘cruel murder’, ‘torture’ and ‘cruel torture’ without clearly defining them. The vague definitions could be just the loophole that allows perpetrators of these crimes to get away scot-free. The main opposition has flatly rejected the bill, stating that such erroneous provisions should be corrected. After objections from conflict victims and the international community, preparations are underway to form a cross-party committee to address the concerns. The ruling coalition seemingly wants to fast-track the bill’s endorsement to take credit ahead of the November elections. Also Read: Is PM Deuba attending UNGA? Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba held related talks with CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli on August 23. In the meeting, UML conveyed that it is ready to lend support for timely conclusion of the peace process but that the bill should be amended. “We advised the prime minister to listen to the concerns of all stakeholders and not to take decisions in a hurry,” says UML leader Subash Nembang. Of late UN’s Resident Coordinator Richard Howard and ambassadors of the US, European Union, Germany and Switzerland have been meeting top leaders of major parties to express their concerns over the bill. They also met Oli on August 24 to voice their opposition against amnesty for serious human rights violators. The international community, however, has not made its position public. “The provisions of the new bill are unjust and we cannot accept it in its current form,” says conflict victim Suman Adhikari. “Murder and torture are grave human rights violations. There is no question of a murder being ‘cruel’ and ‘non-cruel’, unlike what has been provided in the bill.”