Submit your Article

On March 3, Nepal along with 141 countries voted in favor of a resolution that ‘deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine.’ Five countries voted against the motion, while 25 countries remained absent. Nepal’s voting led to a souring of the relationship between Kathmandu and Moscow. Immediately, Russia through public and diplomatic channels expressed its displeasure. Domestic opinions were also divided over the government’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war. “We condemned the attack on Feb 24 and voted in the UN as well, and our position remains the same but there is a realization that we need to restore our cordial ties with Moscow,” says a senior Foreign Ministry source.  Despite the Kremlin's displeasure, the official says, Nepal is still on Russia’s friendly list. He goes on to claim that Vladimir Putin himself places high importance to Nepal. Milan Kumar Tuladhar, Nepal’s newly appointed ambassador to Russia, says though Nepal’s position with respect to the Ukraine conflict did not go down very well in Moscow, “our long-standing ties with Russia need to be further developed for our own benefit.”  Tuladhar has extended an invitation to Putin to visit Nepal in 2023 when the Russian leader is scheduled to visit India.   At a time when European and western countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin is keen to deepen ties with Asian countries, which could provide an opportunity for Nepal as well, say officials.  South Asian countries like India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have already started to expand their areas of cooperation with Russia. Ambassador Tuladhar says this is the right opportunity to deepen collaboration with Moscow in areas such as tourism, trade, and investment.  “Over the past few years, Nepal is facing a chronic problem with fertilizer and we can easily seal a deal on it with Russia to overcome the crisis, says Tuladhar.” “Tourism is another vital area where the two countries can cooperate.”

Who takes a final call on Nepal’s foreign policy matters?  Obviously, it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers can only offer advice, or, to some extent, dictate some issues pertaining to foreign affairs.  But our leaders, senior officials and ministries always tend to bypass the Foreign Ministry in the decision-making process. The latest example of this is President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s participation in a high-level meeting of Global Security Initiatives (GSI), a global governance and security architecture unveiled by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Boa Forum for Asia in April. As Nepal has not made any position on GSI, the Foreign Ministry had advised President Bhandari not to participate in the meeting. The letter sent to the Office of the President by the ministry, which has been leaked to the public reads: “Discussions are under way at the high-level whether to participate in GSI and there is not a concrete position on it so it is appropriate not to participate in it.”  Yet, the president went against the advice and joined the meeting anyway. Her decision, many foreign policy experts say, goes against the stated position of not joining any military alliances. This has raised a serious question on who advised Bhandari to attend the meeting or whether she deliberately defied Foreign Ministry’s advice. “The ministry should be at the center of all external engagements and communication but this is not happening which must be immediately corrected,” says Ramesh Khanal, career diplomat and former Nepali ambassador to Germany.  According to a high-level political source, Bhandari did not take the decision on her own. Top leaders of major parties including Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba advised her to attend the meeting, saying that discarding the invitation will not send out a good message to China.  Nepali leaders and high-ranking officials have long been ignoring the input of Foreign Ministry. Just a few months ago it was revealed that the then Nepal Army chief Rajendra Chhetri had written a letter to the US expressing willingness to join America’s State Partnership Program (SPP) without informing political leadership and the ministry. Similarly, the country’s leadership had sidelined the Foreign Ministry from the entire process of America’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) project.  The mess in the conduct of foreign policy has become more evident after the formation of the current five-party-coalition in July 2021. Members of the ruling coalition are not on the same page on the issue of international relations. They have their own vision and priorities.   Prime Minister Deuba is more inclined toward the democratic world and less keen on engaging with China, while Pushpa Kamal Dahal, leader of CPN (Maoist Center), prefers more close ties with China. Meanwhile, President Bidya Devi Bhandari, who comes from the main opposition, CPN-UML, is reportedly unhappy with several decisions related to foreign affairs taken by the Deuba government. A high level source tells ApEx to appease Dahal, Prime Minister Deuba has taken some unpleasant decisions on foreign affairs.  Arun Subedi, prime minister’s foreign policy advisor, also admits there are gaps when it comes to coordination among key state institutions and they are working to fix it.   As big countries like the US and China are coming up with new strategies in order to counter each other in the Indo-Pacific region, institutions like the Foreign Ministry should be strengthened.  “Our leaders should strengthen Foreign Ministry and its subordinates, including government think-tanks to study the strategies of big countries,” says a senior official at the ministry. “And to avoid controversy, they should speak or take position on the basis of the report prepared by the think-tanks.” But politicians, who lack nuanced understanding of critical geopolitical decisions, have hijacked the decision-making process of the Foreign Ministry, creating more problems than resolving them. One example of this is Nepal’s position on the Russia-Ukraine war. A senior official at the Foreign Ministry says though they had advised the political leadership to stay neutral in the UN voting, the government decided to vote against the Russian invasion. Since Nepal’s institutions are not strong and lack the habit of coordinating among one another, representatives of big countries directly contact their favorable leaders or government ministries whenever they need something from Nepal. For instance, China relies on CPN (Maoist Center) to convey its key messages to the government, while other countries have a direct approach in Baluwatar. Instead of visiting the Foreign Ministry, ambassadors are often seen frequenting the residences of politicians, ministries, Baluwatar and Sheetal Niwas with their agendas. “Ideally, each and every issue relating to external affairs should be cleared from the Foreign Ministry but in Nepal, it seems like other ministries have a free hand to take decisions,” says former ambassador Khanal. According to a ruling party leader, Deuba and Dahal take decisions on key foreign policy matters in mutual consultation these days.  “Many of the Deuba’s foreign policy, be it America’s SPP or India’s Agnipath, were shaped by Dahal’s position. Deuba simply relented due to keep the coalition intact,” says the leader.  Meanwhile, Minister for Foreign Affairs Narayan Khadka, who can play a vital role to ensure the coordination among the major actors, has not been showing much enthusiasm in his work.   He has been known to delegate his duties to others. The source at the ministry says Khadka keeps visiting his electoral constituency in Udayapur, ignoring his ministerial responsibilities.  In fact, ever since his appointment, Khadka has barely agreed for an interview with the press.  Former ambassador Khanal says Foreign Ministry’s role should be further expanded and strengthened in order to address the current mess.   “Had the ministry been allowed to play its role properly, so much of the controversies regarding MCC and SPP could have been avoided.”

Nepal government has appointed Milan Raj Tuladhar as its new Ambassador to Russia. Tuladhar assumes his office amid a critical time in history. Russia is waging a war in Ukraine, much to the disapprobation of the democratic countries around the world. Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talked to Tuladhar about the ongoing war, its implications to the larger world and the bilateral ties between Nepal and Russia.  How do you see the current state of Nepal-Russia relations?  Nepal and Russia share a deep and meaningful relationship since its establishment in 1956. Even during the difficult years of 1990s both in Nepal and Russia, we continued our bilateral engagements. Some of the countries had closed their embassies in Moscow during the period.  Russia has changed as a country since 2001 when the country started seeing a rapid growth in its economy. It, once again, became a superpower in the present multipolar world. So, our relationship with Russia is very important. Both countries place high priority on maintaining good relations. How has the ongoing war impacted bilateral relations?  Well, I have to explain what Russia has to say in this regard. Russia does not call it a war, but it is "a limited military operation". The insurgency in the eastern Ukraine called Donbas has been a well-known reality since 2014. In fact, the predominantly Russian-speaking people there have maintained their apprehension ever since the separation of Ukraine from the Soviet Union in 1991. In recent times, the situation has gotten more complicated for various reasons.  We have always stood for peaceful settlement of all conflicts. One notable point here is that Russia has been advocating for increasing cooperation in Eurasia, which also offers us a good opportunity to augment our cooperation. The ongoing situation in east Europe should not come in the way of the development of our mutual relations. What are your key priorities as a new ambassador to Russia?   Promotion of tourism is one of my key priorities. As per the record of the World Trade Organization, Russia was one of the largest tourism exporting countries before the covid pandemic. Post-pandemic, there is great potential in store for us. After I arrived here in Moscow, I have seen many such interests from the people here. In view of this, we have made available relevant materials in Russian language on our embassy website. I would also like to request hoteliers and other tourism entrepreneurs of Nepal to take some proactive action such as using Russian booking websites like Travel.ru and yandex.ru for providing links to their business and also establishing contacts with agents here.  Recently, there were issues with using booking.com and other sites here. Doing direct marketing with Russia would be highly profitable. We are talking about the market of 60m potential tourists here. I also see a scope for religious relations. Out of 22 republics, four republics have a dominant population of Buddhists. In other places also, there are a large number of Buddhist followers. As Nepal is the birthplace of Shakyamuni Buddha, there is a great potential of their interest in Nepal.  I recently visited one of the oldest Buddhist temples of the country in Saint Petersburg. I conducted Buddha Puja to consecrate the Buddha statue that I had brought from Patan as a gift to the temple.  I saw great interest from the monks and other large numbers of visitors there. This weekend, I will be visiting another Buddhist dominated area in Buriyati, in the Baikal region of Russia. The Russian Buddhists are also making a Russian temple in Lumbini. With all these activities, I hope that the peaceful path of Buddhism can help further strengthen our relations. [caption id="attachment_31763" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Tuladhar handing over a Buddha statue to the head priest of the Buddhist Temple in Saint Petersburg, Russia on 2 Sept 2022.[/caption] What about cooperation in Trade and Investment? Russia is the biggest exporter of fertilizer, wheat and many other products in the world. It has been organizing distribution of 300,000 tons of fertilizer to Africa for free as international trade with Russia has been restricted as a result of sanctions. I see that direct trade with Russia can meet some of Nepal’s dire needs.  Similarly, there is also a great demand for Nepali tea, coffee, handicrafts, etc. There has to be an initiative from our side to find a long term-solution to our acute fertilizer shortage. I hope that there will be an increase in trade in the coming days. It is reported that Russia is unhappy with Nepal’s position in the Russia-Ukraine war. Do you sense that?  Nepal is a non-aligned country. We have committed to non-alignment, Panchasheel and adherence to the UN charter by enshrining their principles in our constitution. It is true that our position in February 2022 in respect to the Ukraine conflict did not go down very well here. Despite that, our long-standing ties with Russia need to be further developed for our own benefit.  What is the current status of Nepali students and workers in Russia?  There is a large number of Nepalis living in Russia. It all began with thousands of Nepali students coming here during the 1960s and 1970s for their studies. There are almost a dozen former ministers in Nepal who were ex-students of the Soviet Union. You will find hundreds of good doctors and engineers who were educated in the Soviet Union and later in Russia. Some of the Nepali people have settled in Russia. Because of a large number of Nepali diaspora, the Non-resident Nepali (NRN) movement started from Russia and it has become a worldwide organization now. Similarly, the high quality educational institutions in Russia are attracting more and more of Nepali students here. All interested students are requested to directly contact the institutions through emails if they wish to study here. The Russian Cultural Centre in Kathmandu can also help them. Here, I feel it is also important to talk about the recent phenomenon of distortions and extortions by some manpower agencies. They have been wrongly advising the Nepali youths that Russia can be a conduit to enter into other parts of Europe with present conflict as a pretext. This misinformation and exploitation have resulted in many innocent people landing in difficulty here. The rules here are very strict including the border security. Some of such misguided visitors were stranded without money and food here. So, I request the general public to be aware of such unscrupulous agents. We have placed a notice in this regard on our website as well.

The 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly is under way in New York, US. The key session or the general debate, where world leaders are addressing, started on Sept 20 and it will end on the 26th. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, UNGA was held in a hybrid format in 2020 and 2021. This year, it is going to be a fully in-person event. The gathering of world leaders is an opportunity for high-level dignitaries to visit the UN headquarters and discuss world issues. It is also an opportunity to hold bilateral talks on the margins of the assembly. Indian and Chinese foreign ministers S Jainshankar and Wang Yi respectively are scheduled to address the assembly. Nepal’s Foreign Minister Narayan Khadka, however, sent Foreign Secretary Bharat Raj Paudyal in his lieu. Geopolitical analyst Geja Sharma Wagle says it would have been better if there were a high-level participation from Nepal in the UNGA. “It may be due to the internal political situation but it seems the foreign minister is not working proactively since assuming the office,” he says. Khadka refused to attend, citing the looming elections. But this is not the first time he has passed on the chance to represent Nepal at the global stage. Back in April, he had refused to attend the Raisina Dialogue organized by Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. A source at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs says Khadka is not comfortable visiting foreign countries, particularly if that meant participating in international programs. He has not shown interest in the works of the ministry as well. He has been known to delegate his duties to others. The source at the ministry says Khadka keeps visiting his electoral constituency in Udayapur, ignoring his ministerial responsibilities. Ever since his appointment, he has barely agreed for an interview with the press. There has been no prime ministerial-level participation from Nepal in the annual UN gathering of member countries since 2018. That year, KP Sharma Oli led the Nepali delegation to the UN headquarters. In 2019, the UNGA was attended by then foreign minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, and in 2020 and 2021, Nepal’s prime ministers had virtually addressed the event.  

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.