Submit your Article

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal faces an immense foreign policy challenge of building an environment of trust with India, China and the US. The three major powers maintain strong influence in Nepal’s political, economic and military spheres, and it will be up to the new prime minister to perform a diplomatic balancing act. It’s a tall order, given the rising geopolitical tensions between US-China and India-China. It is no secret that India and China have strategic interests in Nepal. As a state located between these two rivals, it is critical for Nepal to keep its engagements with both countries balanced.  Deputy Prime Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha intimated the same in a recent interview with Reuters where he said that the government would maintain “relationships of equi-proximity” with both neighbors. But this is easier said than done. Foreign policy analyst Geja Sharma Wagle says the new government should not tilt toward one neighbor and disregard the other. “There are a host of issues including border disputes with both countries that need addressing. For this, an environment of trust is crucial.” In Wagle’s reading, China, while extending its congratulatory message to Dahal on his appointment, has given a clear message that it wants to push the projects under Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Nepal. It’s no wonder, Beijing is upbeat about Dahal, of Maoist party, leading the government, but it is the job of the new prime minister to win the trust of India and the US as well. “Winning the confidence of the Western power in particular is one of the major challenges of the Dahal government,” says Wagle. Earlier, the CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN-UML leaders had criticized the Nepali Congress-led government for violating the long-standing foreign policy of non-alignment and becoming pro-Western. Their claim was not unfounded. Nepal-China ties did take a hit under the Deuba administration. On several occasions, the northern neighbors had openly expressed displeasure on the decisions taken by the previous government. Now, the two ruling left parties must prove that they are adherent of the non-alignment policy. Dahal takes charge at a time when some crucial issues related to the US, China and India are pending. Nepal is yet to take a concrete position on India’s military recruitment scheme called Agnipath. The status of America’s State Partnership Program (SPP) is also uncertain. It won’t be an easy job for the Dahal government to take decisions on these issues because of internal and external pressures. The election manifestos of Maoist and UML provide some hints of the new government’s foreign policy. The Maoist party has explained in detail in the foreign policy section of its election manifesto that friendly and proximate relationships will be maintained with both neighbors. The party also says that it is important for Nepal to remain free from all sorts of foreign military activities and become a zone of peace. It expressly states that Nepal will not become a part of any bilateral or multilateral military alliances. Then there are also issues pertaining to India. The manifesto talks about regulating open borders with India and reviewing or canceling the Peace and Friendship Treaty (1950), the Tripartite Agreement (1947), and other treaties related to trade and treaties with India. Similarly, UML’s election manifesto states the party will maintain an independent and balanced foreign policy with a priority on neighboring countries. It talks about the approach of “amity with all and enmity with none” in order to foster a relationship based on sovereign equality. The UML manifesto also says that the disputed territories between Nepal and India at Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani will be recovered, and that all treaties with India will be reviewed to protect Nepal’s welfare. It remains to be seen if the two parties will follow through on the promises they have made on their election manifestos. If they did, some of the issues such as border dispute resolution and review of past treaties could raise complexities with India. Foreign policy experts say the Dahal government must be careful not to shake the tightrope of diplomacy. Keep house in order first  Anil Sigdel, Foreign Policy Expert Nepal’s domestic politics has failed to convince external partners. Extremely personal power-centric practices by political parties have eroded Nepal’s standing in the international stage. This has adversely impacted Nepal’s growth and development. Nepal has to keep its own house in order first before going on to tackle foreign policy matters. Dahal, for his past record as a rebel, will certainly draw attention of the international community, especially to what direction he will lean in these geopolitically challenging times.  Oftentimes, his past actions seemed guided by his ideology. Issuing a support letter over Venezuela to show his anti-American stance was one such example. Right after his appointment as prime minister this time, he posted a tweet about celebrating Mao Zedong’s 130th birth anniversary. Certainly, this is a symbolic act, but it can still raise suspicion regarding his political objectives. Winning trust is the key  Chandra Dev Bhatt, foreign policy expert The biggest foreign policy challenge for this government is whether it can win the trust, not only of immediate and distant neighbors but also of the international community at large. Nepal’s economy is already feeling the heat and we need foreign investment. Therefore, the following points need to be taken into consideration. The first is that the foreign policy priority of this new government should be to maintain best relations both with India and China. No political ideology should be reflected while conducting foreign policy. A political party’s foreign policy cannot be national foreign policy. The second point is we need to bring the broader international community into confidence, as they have been our developmental partners for a long period of time. This does not mean that we need to take each and every prescription for the development and other activities they provide. We need to put national perspectives into consideration and take the factor of comparative advantage into mind. Thirdly, our relations with the West including the US should be maintained at the best level. We need to activate our economic diplomacy to attract investment and resuscitate the economy. Fourth, we must maintain friendly ties with West Asian countries, where a large number of Nepalis are working. And lastly, we should take advantage of the new geopolitics in Asia. Our foreign policy should be streamlined with other policies or vice versa, and the line ministry and its other agencies should not be politicized. If this government is a product of geopolitics, then there are always more than one actor who will try to bend it on their way. And what guarantee is there they will continue to support it. After all, there are always certain interests behind geopolitics.

Call it a political accident, a miscalculation, or a simple twist of fate, but there is no escaping the fact that this is the time of reckoning for the Nepali Congress. The party has been relegated to the opposition benches even after winning the most number of seats in the House of Representatives. The culprit here is no other than Sher Bahadur Deuba, the leader of the grand old party, who threw it all away by letting the pre-election ruling coalition break down. With only 89 seats secured in the 275-member parliament, the picture was quite clear for the NC: the party had no chance of leading the government while also holding all the important positions of president, vice president and speaker. The solution was also simple enough: work out a power-sharing deal with the CPN (Maoist Center), the key coalition partner, on those highly coveted posts. But no, Deuba refused to delay his personal ambition of becoming a prime minister for a record sixth term, instead of handing over the premiership to Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal for 2.5 years and taking over the reins for the remainder term. This was what Deuba and Dahal had agreed upon after all, but the former reneged on the deal. In the words of senior NC leader Ram Chandra Poudel, it was Deuba who betrayed Dahal. "We have nothing left now, we've lost everything," Poudel told the media on Sunday. Dahal, whose party won just 32 seats in the Nov 20 parliamentary election, had no qualms abandoning the coalition and forging an alliance with the CPN-UML led by his former rival, KP Oli. Deuba was confident that Dahal would never ally with Oli, or vice versa. This was a major miscalculation on Deuba’s part. If anyone who could have sniffed out Dahal’s agenda, it was Deuba. After all, the Dahal had broken faith with the NC and joined forces with the UML ahead of the 2017 polls. Now, Deuba’s leadership is being questioned within his party. Some leaders have even called for his resignation. “Our party president and parliamentary party leader, Sher Bahadur Deuba, should immediately resign from both positions on moral grounds,” party leader Gururaj Ghimire wrote on his Facebook. According to some NC leaders, Deuba had been taking decisions on vital issues without consulting with the party, save a few leaders from his faction. He had surrounded himself with a close group of advisors, including Purna Bahadur Khadka, Bimalendra Nidhi, Gyanendra Bahadur Karki and Prakash Sharan Mahat. These leaders allegedly offered wrong advice to Deuba, to the detriment of the party. When Dahal staked his claim to the post of prime minister after the election results, Deuba made him wait until the NC’s parliamentary party poll. And being selected as the PP leader, Deuba, on the advice of his lieutenants, tried to convince Dahal to allow him to lead the government first. It is said that Deuba had agreed to hand over the power to Dahal at a meeting that took place on Dec 17. However, Deuba later backtracked from the understanding. NC central member Nainsingh Mahar called the dissolution of the five-party coalition a “terrible mistake” by Deuba."It was necessary to continue the coalition. Our friends were deprived of the opportunity to contest the election because of this coalition. We knew the Maoists wouldn't be loyal, but we abided by the decision taken by the party leadership." Mahar wants an answer as to why the party leadership didn’t make an effort to save the coalition after the election.“Those responsible for breaking the coalition must face action,” he demanded. Deuba needs some explanation before the party's Central Working Committee and Parliamentary Party. Some leaders say the party president is not only who is at fault. They have also blamed the anti-establishment leaders including Shekhar Koirala and Gagan Kumar Thapa for putting pressure on Deuba to take an inflexible position and demand for both prime ministerial and presidential posts.

There are no permanent friends or foes in politics. True to this statement, the CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) stand at the cusp of forming a coalition government while the Nepali Congress has been bumped to the opposition aisle. In a dramatic turn of events, the Maoist Center on Sunday decided to part ways from the five-party alliance led by the NC and join the UML to form a new government. The two parties have agreed to lead a rotational government for 2.5 years each. Maoists chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal will hold the post of prime minister for the first-half of the government’s term, followed by UML chief KP Sharma Oli. As per the agreement, Dahal was appointed the new prime minister by President Bidya Devi Bhandari late Sunday afternoon. The Maoist Center and UML have also agreed to share the post of parliament speaker on a rotational basis. The post of president will be held by the UML for a full five-year term. “Now that we have agreed to form an agenda-based government, the remaining issue of power-sharing will be settled after the government formation,” said UML General Secretary Ishwar Pokhrel. Rastriya Swatantra Party, Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Janata Samajbadi Party, Janamat Party and Nagarik Unmukti Party will also join the coalition. Together, they will have 170 seats in the 275-member parliament. The NC remains the largest party with 89 seats. The UML and Maoists have 78 and 32 seats respectively. Until Sunday morning, the coming together of UML and Maoist Center was unexpected, given the bad blood between Oli and Dahal. Since the Maoists contested the Nov 20 general elections by forming an electoral alliance with the NC and three other fringe parties, it was widely believed that the five-party coalition would prevail. But Dahal abruptly abandoned the coalition ship saying the NC tried to ditch him by taking an “unrealistic condition” of taking both prime ministerial and presidential posts. “Just a week earlier, Deuba had agreed to form a rotational government, where I would lead until mid-term. But he reneged on the agreement,” said Dahal. “He (Deuba) told me that he was under extreme pressure from his own party leaders, that he could not convince them.” The Maoists chairman also said that it was never his intention to break the five-party coalition. “There was a new situation after Deuba decided not to honor the agreement,” he added. Maoist leader Barsha Man Pun had been working behind the scenes to plan for a contingency, in case the NC decides to play spoilsport. He had been holding meetings with the UML to discuss the possibility of forming a coalition government. On Saturday, Pun had said his party would break the coalition if it didn’t get the leadership of the new government. Inside the NC, Deuba was hard-pressed not to hand over the prime ministerial post to the Maoists. Some leaders even advised abandoning the Maoist party and forming a coalition government by bringing together other fringe parties. Clearly, the NC didn’t anticipate the prospect of Dahal patching things up with Oli. The UML and Maoists are once again returning to power, just like they did after the 2017 elections. The two parties merged to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) in 2018, only to break up less than three years later after Oli didn’t honor his promise to hand over the prime ministerial post to Dahal after 2.5 years. The rivalry between Oli and Dahal deepened over the years, as the NCP breakup was particularly hard on the UML, whose senior leaders Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal also soon left the party to form CPN (Unified Socialist). Oli, who was leading the government at the time, tried unsuccessfully twice to dissolve the parliament to hold on to power, but was eventually ousted at the order of the Supreme Court. Oli was replaced by Deuba, who would lead a five-coalition government with the Maoists, Unified Socialist, Janata Samajbadi and Rastriya Janamorcha. These same five parties forged an electoral alliance in the Nov 20 elections. Since the elections, the UML has been sitting on the fence regarding the government formation process. It was biding its time for the five-party alliance to finally crack. Soon after the elections, the UML had said that it was ready to support the NC in the government formation process. But, at the same time, it was also holding closed-door negotiations with the Maoists. Despite the strained relationship between Oli and Dahal, the second-rung leaders from the two parties were in continuous talks to revive a coalition government led by leftist parties. In a way, things have come full circle for Oli and his party. Disagreement inside the same coalition that expelled the UML from power back in 2021 has become the reason why the party is now returning to power.  

The US has been expanding its economic footprint in the Indo-Pacific region. In May, it launched the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) bringing 12 countries (40 percent of the world’s GDP) on board. The IPEF focuses on four key pillars: trade, supply chains, clean energy, and fair economy. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is at the forefront of implementing this framework, which is said to be the economic leg of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS). Across the region, the US development agency has been implementing trade and competitiveness (T&C) programs. A report prepared by the agency in 2021 states that it is a whole-of-government program designed to incentivize greater business engagement in the Indo-Pacific region by enhancing trade facilitation, improving market-based trade and competitiveness laws and policies, and increasing private sector participation. The overall goal of T&C is to increase inclusive and broad-based sustained free and fair trade as well as competitiveness in the Indo-Pacific region. In September this year, USAID launched a T & C project, the first of its kind, in Nepal. USAID and the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies jointly launched the project. The ministry, however, has said it will only play the role of an advisor to the program, while stressing that it is not an implementation partner. “We cannot become a part of it but can facilitate the implementation of the project,” a senior ministry official told ApEx. He was apparently unaware of the fact that the project fell under the broader framework of IPS. Foreign policy expert Rupak Sapkota said great powers are implementing the projects of their strategic importance in an opaque manner. “In order to avoid potential backlash, they are pushing such strategies in the guise of economic benefit, development and job creation,” he added. According to Don McLain Gill, a Manila-based expert on Indo-Pacific affairs, the US initiative is crucial at least in theory, as there is a large infrastructure development gap in the region and the notoriety of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). “China’s disregard for international macroeconomic stability by funding unsustainable projects for countries with low or non-existing credit ratings eventually burdens them by pulling these countries deeper into debt burdens,” he told ApEx. “The potential alternatives provided by the US and its allies are a welcoming development.” This is not the first time the US or the West has pushed for a “game changing” alternative to China’s BRI. Such projects didn’t take off due to domestic constraints, which led to the inability of the US and its allies to provide the needed funds. Ultimately, said Gill, the US and its allies must come up with a more comprehensive and practical strategy that leverages on their strengths and expertise for the benefit of the developing world. “Presenting new initiatives year after year that are not fully funded, well-implemented, and quickly replaced may further tarnish the legitimacy and credibility of the West to provide robust platforms for growth amid China’s growing global ambitions,” he added. Since the launch of IPEF, the US has been briefing other South Asian countries, but no formal discussion has been held with Nepal. Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister AK Abdul said on Thursday that his country is looking into the pros and cons of the framework in order to decide whether it is beneficial to the country. IPEF is regarded as a counterweight against Chinese influence in the region. Last week, trade and economic ministers of all members of IPEF met to discuss economic issues including the digital economy. Though Nepal is not an official IPEF partner, observers say economic activities under the IPS are already taking place.

Satoru Nagao is a fellow (non-resident) at Hudson Institute, based in Tokyo, Japan. From Dec 2017 through Nov 2020, he was a visiting fellow at Hudson Institute, based in Washington, DC. Nagao’s primary research area is US-Japan-India security cooperation. He was awarded his PhD by Gakushuin University in 2011 for his thesis, ‘India’s Military Strategy,’ the first such research thesis on this topic in Japan. Gakushuin University is a premier institution from which members of the Japanese Imperial Family have also graduated. Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to him about Japan’s new security policy, US-China contestation among others. Japan has come up with its new National Security Strategy, what could be its possible implications for the Indo-pacific region? This National Security Strategy changes Japan’s security strategy drastically, and its impact will spread to the Indo-Pacific region. There are three pillars in this strategy. Firstly, Japan clearly identifies China, North Korea, and Russia as threats to Japan in this document. Secondly, Japan will integrate strategies both military and non-military to deal with the threats. And thirdly, Japan will strengthen international cooperation to deal with China, which means like Australia and India, Japan will possess counter-strike capabilities. In some cases, Japan will commit an offensive-defense operation. The offense-defense combination with long-range strike capability is a more effective strategy than a defense-only strategy to counter China’s territorial expansion. Say, if Japan and India possess long-range strike capabilities, this combined capability makes China defend multiple fronts. Even if China decides to expand its territories along the India-China border, China still needs to expend a certain amount of its budget and military force to defend itself against Japan. This document clearly mentions that Japan will increase official development assistance (ODA) for a strategic purpose. For the purpose of deepening security cooperation with like-minded countries, apart from ODA for the economic and social development of developing countries and other purposes, a new cooperation framework for the benefit of armed forces and other related organizations will be established. It will affect the whole part of the Indo-Pacific. For a long time, a ‘hub and spoke’ system has maintained order in the Indo-Pacific. In this system, the hub is the US and the many spokes are the US allies such as Japan, Australia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, and South Korea in the Indo-Pacific. A feature of the current system is that it heavily depends on the US. For example, even though Japan and Australia are both US allies, there is no Japan-Australia alliance.  However, China’s recent provocations indicate that the current system has not worked to dissuade its expansion. Between 2011 and 2020 China increased its military expenditure by 76 percent, and the US decreased its expenditure by 10 percent. Even if the US military expenditure were three times bigger than China’s, the current “hub and spoke” system would still not be enough As a result, a new network-based security system is emerging. The US allies and partners cooperate with each other and share security burdens with the US and among themselves. Many bilateral, trilateral, quadrilateral, or other multilateral cooperation arrangements—such as US-Japan-India, Japan-India-Australia, Australia-UK-US(AUKUS), India-Australia-Indonesia, India-Australia-France, and India-Israel-UAE-US(I2U2)—are creating a network of security cooperation and sharing the regional security burden. Japan’s latest security strategy is based on such an idea. Japan will share the security burden with the US by possessing strike capability and providing arms to countries in this region as one of the security providers of the US-led circle. Could you elaborate on Japan’s South Asia policy, its priorities, and its interest in this region? In the past, Japan did not have a strategy in South Asia. Japan supported many infrastructure projects in South Asia purely because Japan tried to contribute to the local society. However, since China expanded its influence in South Asia and provoked Japan in many places in the Indo-Pacific, Japan’s attitude has changed. Because China’s infrastructure projects are the ones with high-interest rate, it created huge debt and Sri Lanka needed to give China the right to control Hambantota port. This is one typical example of how dangerous China’s hegemonic ambition has become. This time, the National Security Strategy of Japan clearly wrote “Strategic Use of ODA.” Japan will continue many infrastructure projects in South Asia as pure assistance. But at the same time, Japan will increase the projects to save local countries and dissuade China’s hegemonic ambition. How do you see the growing rivalry between the US and China in the Indo-Pacific region? The most recent US National Security Strategy indicated that US-China competition will escalate. The document states: “The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it. And three factors indicate that America is on the road to win the competition with China. First, the US is still stronger than China. A SIPRI database indicates that the US military expenditure in 2020 was three times bigger than China’s. In addition, the US has more allies. The number of political partners has been a decisive factor in geopolitical competition. For example, in WWI, the winning side comprised 32 countries, but the losing side was composed of just four countries. In WWII, the winning side had 54, but the losing side had only eight. In the case of the US-Soviet Cold War, the winning side had 54 countries, but the defeated side had 26. In the case of the current US-China competition, the US has 52 legal-based formal allies including NATO, the Central and South American countries, and Middle East and Asian allies like Japan. But China has only North Korea as a formal ally. The history of the US indicates that the US will win the competition with China.  246 years ago, the US was a single colony of the British Empire. But they transformed into the world’s only superpower now. During this time, all rivals of the US, including Germany, Japan, and the USSR, disappeared. This means that the US system is a successful system to be powerful and win the competition. And indeed, the US had a long-term plan to win the competition. For example, before WWII, the US had an “Orange Plan” to defeat Japan and implemented it. But when that plan was declassified in 1974, the world was surprised to learn that there were also other plans, including a “Red Plan” to defeat Britain and Canada. Both in WWI and WWII, the US supported the British. But because the world is changeable, it is understandable that the US was prepared for any type of contingency. If the US National Security Strategy states that “the PRC is the only competitor,” it is natural to conclude that the US has the plan to defeat China. US Republicans and Democrats share many similar goals toward China. The Trump administration’s so-called ‘high-tech war,’ which banned products from Huawei and ZTE,  started when the Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE was published in 2012, during the Obama administration. The current Biden administration also continued the policy. The US’s objectives in this competition have bipartisan support. Therefore, considering these situations, we should stand with the US because being on the winning side is beneficial. And three factors indicate that America is on the road to win the competition with China Where does India stand on the US-China rivalry? India and Japan share the same set of problems. For example, in the sea around the Senkaku Islands of Japan, China has employed its coast guards and increased its activities. In 2011, the number of Chinese vessels identified within the contiguous zone in the waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands in Japan was only 12. But the number increased to 428 in 2012, 819 in 2013, 729 in 2014, 707 in 2015, 752 in 2016, 696 in 2017, and 615 in 2018. By 2019, the number had reached 1097. A comparison between the number of Chinese vessels identified within the contiguous zone in the waters surrounding the Senkaku Islands in Japan and China’s incursions in the Sino-Indian border area are similar. In 2011, India recorded 213 incursions in the Sino-Indian border area, but in the following years, the numbers were larger: 426 in 2012, 411 in 2013, 460 in 2014, 428 in 2015, 296 in 2016, 473 in 2017, 404 in 2018, and 663 in 2019. These incursions are similar to China’s activities around the Senkaku Islands of Japan. Based on the number of Chinese incursions in the India-China border area and Chinese activities in the sea around the Senkaku Islands, it becomes apparent that China has increased its assertiveness in 2012 and 2019 in both regions. Therefore, India should cooperate with the US, Australia and Japan. However, cooperation also has a risk. In the QUAD, India could be the first target of China to make pressure. India shares a land border with China and the US, Australia and Japan do not. It is easier for China to provoke India by using ground and air forces. In addition, India is not a treaty-based formal ally with the US like Australia and Japan are. View from China is that India is the weakest link. If China wants to make pressure to disband QUAD, India could be the first target. Therefore, India wanted to be low profile in the QUAD military cooperation despite India promoting military cooperation with other QUAD members. However, China’s recent provocation against India on the India-China border changed India’s attitude. The more China escalates the situation, the more the QUAD should become institutionalized and cohesive. What are your suggestions to the countries like Nepal regarding the conduct of foreign policy in this turbulent geopolitical environment? The above mentioned answer indicated two things. Firstly, China’s infrastructure projects and economic support could be a ‘debt trap’. Japan’s one is workable and far better. Second, America is on the road to winning the competition with China. The winning side is always beneficial. But when Nepal shows a clear stance against China, China will provoke and try to punish Nepal. Therefore, Nepal should gradually distance itself from China. For Nepal to cooperate with the QUAD side more deeply and steadily is the best policy.  

It’s official—Gagan Kumar Thapa has entered the prime minister’s race. The Nepali Congress general secretary will contest the parliamentary party leadership election against the incumbent, Sher Bahadur Deuba, on Wednesday. Thapa, 46, is widely regarded as one of the most popular leaders both inside and outside his party. Many see him as the future of Nepal’s grand old party. Inside the NC, winning the PP leader election is a prerequisite for becoming a prime ministerial candidate. Thapa’s candidacy was made possible after senior leader Shekhar Koirala, Deuba’s main rival in the party, decided not to run in the election. Koirala will be supporting Thapa’s bid for PP leadership. Party leaders say Koirala agreed to pave the way for Thapa on the condition that the latter reciprocate the support when he runs for the party presidency in 2025. Koirala and Thapa had worked together in the 14th general convention of the party held in 2021 when Koirala lost the leadership race to Deuba and Thapa was elected general secretary. After the Nov 20 general elections, both Koirala and Thapa were planning to vie in the PP election to unseat Deuba, a record five-time prime minister who is now plotting for a sixth stint. Youth NC leader Pradeep Poudel and General Secretary Bishwa Prakash Sharma have also supported Thapa’s bid. Meanwhile, senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel has backed Deuba. A one-time rival of Deuba, it is said Poudel agreed to help the incumbent after he was offered the party’s candidate for the next president of the country. In terms of numerical strength, Deuba, 76, holds a considerable sway in the party. Party leaders say it won’t be easy for Thapa. Out of 89 lawmakers elected from the party this past election, nearly 60 belong to the Deuba camp. The party statute states that a PP leader candidate should muster the support of 50 percent lawmakers. Political analyst Bishnu Dahal says this is a big opportunity for Thapa to emerge as a serious contender for the party leadership, though the chances of him winning the PP election appears slim. He adds that Thapa will have to garner a sizable vote numbers in order to strengthen his position in the NC. Senior journalist Harihar Birahi, who closely follows Congress politics, has termed Thapa’s PP leadership bid as “bold and courageous”. He says Thapa has galvanized the party’s rank and file who have long desired for a change. Birahi adds Koirala’s move to back Thapa is also meaningful in that he has shown that unlike Deuba, he is willing to give young leaders a chance to lead. Deuba’s political journey Born in 1946 in a socially and economically backward far-western region, Deuba began his political career as a student leader.  He became the chairman of the party’s far-western students’ committee from 1965 to 1968.  In 1994, he was elected as PP leader for the first time, which paved the way for him to become prime minister. Deuba went on to cement his position in the party, and in the 10th general convention of the NC held in 2001, he contested for party presidency. In 2002, he broke away from the party due to the differences with the then party president, Girija Prasad Koirala. In the process, around 40 percent of leaders and cadres joined the Deuba-led Nepali Congress (Democratic). The incident showed Deuba’s influence in the party. Deuba returned to NC in 2006, taking 40 percent share in all party organizations. His ambition to become the party president materialized in 2016. After Deuba failed to garner 51 percent votes to win the presidency outright in the 13th general convention, a second round of vote was conducted. And this time, he received 58 percent of the vote with the support of the Krishna Prasad Sitaula faction. Deuba’s marriage with Arzoo Rana also helped him strengthen his position in national politics as well as in the party. It was Arzoo who helped Deuba connect with the monarchy. In the late 1990s, when the monarchy had a powerful influence in politics, Deuba became prime minister for two terms in 2004-2005, and 2001-2002. Thapa’s political journey A former student leader, Thapa has risen through the party ranks in an incredible fashion. Born in Kathmandu in 1976, Thapa was elected as a member of Free Student Union of Trichandra College in 1993 and later went on to become the president of the campus committee. He became the general secretary of the union in 2001.  As a student leader, Thapa shot to fame for organizing protests against monarchy. He was elected as the general secretary of NC in 2021 and has previously served as a health minister. He is among the few well-read politicians of Nepal, who holds a master’s degree. He became a Congress lawmaker for the first time as a member of the first Constituent Assembly (CA) in 2008. From then on, he has continued to win elections from Kathmandu-4. He was appointed the health minister in 2017.  Thapa is popular among the party cadres, but when it comes to the Central Working Committee or PP, he has few supporters. The NC leadership structure is largely dominated by old faces, and for a young leader like Thapa to get to the top is difficult.

It’s the curse of coalition politics. Nepal’s major political parties are caught in a whirlwind of negotiation and bargaining to form a new government. At stake are the key positions of prime minister, speaker and president. Talks have begun between the Nepali Congress and CPN (Maoist Center) on sharing prime minister, Speaker and  president, while the CPN-UML is also approaching other parties to explore the possibilities of government formation. UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli on Saturday said he was closely following the power-sharing talks inside the incumbent five-party ruling coalition.. Some UML leaders say a split in the current five-party coalition, led by the Congress, will pave the way for UML-Maoist possible partnership for government formation, and they are already in talks with the Maoists. But with all three major parties making a beeline for the next premiership, the attraction of the post has somewhat become a secondary prize. No matter who becomes the next prime minister, it is almost certain he will not get to enjoy the full five-year term. So, the power-sharing negotiations seem to have pivoted towards the posts of president and speaker. The experience of the last five years has clearly shown that even the president and speaker, despite being ceremonial posts, could wield significant influence and power over the executive. The president and speaker can work in the interests of their respective parties, even though it goes against the hallowed tenet of separation of power. The NC leaders are publicly saying the party should not make unnecessary compromises on the presidential candidate. On Saturday, NC General Secretary Bishawa Prakash Sharma said at an event that a full-term presidency was more important to the party than a half-term premiership in a coalition government. The five-party coalition is far from reaching a consensus with its member parties. The coalition leader, NC, wants to retain its position of the executive head as well as install its presidential candidate at Sheetal Niwas. The Maoist Center and other coalition partners, on the other hand, are saying that the Congress cannot have both ways. They are insisting that the NC pick one of the two posts. Other leaders in the ruling coalition have also shown their interest to become the next president. Prior to the Nov 20 elections, Jhala Nath Khanal, a senior leader of CPN (Unified Socialist), had proposed divvying up the posts of president and speaker.  Some coalition leaders, including Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the Maoist Center, want Unified Socialist chair Madhav Kumar Nepal to become the next president. But sources say Nepal has been telling leaders that he would rather become a prime minister. From the NC, the potential presidential candidates are Ram Chandra Poudel, Krishna Sitaula and KB Gurung. If UML gets the position of president in its power sharing talks with either the NC or the Maoist, Subas Nembang is its preferred candidate. A former speaker, Nembang was a UML presidential candidate in 2017 as well, but incumbent President Bidya Devi Bhandari, also from the UML, was elected for the second term.  Incumbent Vice President Nanda Bahadur Pun and former speaker Agni Prasad Sapkota, are among the presidential aspirants from the Maoist Center. If the Maoist Center gets the position, the party is likely to tap Sapkota for the job. According to a Maoist leader, chairman Dahal has already given his green signal to Sapkota, who did not contest the parliamentary election this time.   Other leaders in the party also see Amik Sherchan as the likely candidate for the next president. Sherchan is currently the Province Chief of Lumbini Province.  

The government’s decision to put forward an ordinance to amend sub-section 116 of the National Criminal Procedures Act, 2017 has drawn widespread criticism. If the ordinance gets the President’s approval, it will allow the government to withdraw political cases pending in any court of law. President Bidya Devi Bhandari is likely to authenticate the ordinance. The ruling political parties maintain that there is a cross-party agreement to withdraw cases of “political nature”. As per existing law, the government can withdraw only those cases pending in district courts. Political experts say the ordinance is meant to secure the incumbent five-party coalition a comfortable majority in parliament to form a new government. Previous governments had signed agreements with various political outfits pledging to withdraw criminal cases against their leaders and cadres. Those cases range from the Maoist insurgency to the deal that KP Sharma Oli-led government signed with the Netra Bikram Chand-led Communist Party of Nepal. Major parties are demonstrating double standards vis-a-vis these cases. If it serves their immediate interests like government formation, they have no qualms in calling these cases “political”. Human rights activists say that withdrawal of such cases amounts to a grave violation of human rights—it will tarnish the country’s image and promote impunity. The ordinance aims to provide blanket amnesty to all kinds of serious crimes committed under any political guise. It impinges on the jursidiction of the judiciary. The ordinance also directly contravenes the stipulations of international conventions and treaties that Nepal is a party to. It will, in all likelihood, complicate Nepal's attempt to garner support of democratic world in concluding its transitional justice process. The National Human Rights Commission, civil society groups and conflict victims have demanded that the government withdraw the controversial ordinance. Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says:  “Even if some cases are withdrawn by amending the laws, it will unleash a never-ending series of withdrawing criminal cases through political means. It will contribute to the culture of impunity.” Securing the release of Resham Lal Chaudhary, the founding chair of Nagarik Unmukti Party, appears to be the immediate objective of this ordinance. Chaudhary stands convicted of masterminding the 2015 Tikapur incident, in which eight people, including a senior Nepal Police officer and a toddler, lost their lives. At that time, political parties were divided on how to take this massacre — some saw it as a political issue, while others termed it as a criminal one. Chaudhary’s supporters claim that the investigation report of the incident, prepared by Justice Girsh Chandra Lal, does not implicate Chaudhary. Many feel that Chaudhary has been unjustly jailed. Lal’s report has not yet been made public. A large section of the Tharu community seems to feel that Chaudhary has suffered injustice. This grievance has been manifested this past election. Nagarik Unmukti Party, registered under the leadership of Chaudhary’s wife Ranjeeta Shrestha, won three House of Representatives seats under the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system. The same party’s Lalbir Chaudhary won as an independent candidate from Bardiya-2. Chaudhary’s party has won 12 seats in provincial assemblies and secured almost 300,000 Proportional Representation votes as well. This shows the sympathy of the Tharu community towards Chaudhary. With 136 seats in the federal parliament, the current ruling coalition is just two seats short of the majority it needs to form a government. Securing Chaudhary’s release at this time could be key to the government formation process. Defending the ordinance, Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, minister for information and communication, says it aims to enhance national unity by bringing all political forces on board. Another senior government minister claims that the ordinance has nothing to do with government formation, saying there is an all-party consensus on the ordinance. The ordinance, the minister adds, is in line with agreements signed between the previous government and different political parties and outfits. CPN-UML has opposed the ordinance, even though it has been brought to implement the agreements signed between the then Oli-led government and different political outfits. Former home minister Ram Bahadur Thapa had signed an agreement with the Chand-led Nepal Communist Party on March 4, 2021. He had also signed an 11-point deal with CK Raut of Independent Madhesh Alliance on March 8, 2018. Similarly, Lilanath Shrestha, law minister in the Oli government, had signed a similar agreement with Rukmini Chaudhary of Tharuhat Joint Struggle Committee on June 1, 2021. Cross-party leaders say the spirit of these agreements is paving the legal way for withdrawal of pending cases against leaders and cadres of these groups that have joined mainstream politics. They say it is similar to the withdrawal of cases against Maoist chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal, senior leader Baburam Bhattarai and other leaders after the signing of Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) in 2006. Former prime ministers Dahal, Bhattarai and Madhav Kumar Nepal recently met Chaudhary in Dillibazaar Prison after Nagrik Unmukti Party’s spectacular performance in the elections. What the ruling parties do not seem to realize is that this ordinance, if passed, will open too big a can of worms. They seem least bothered that it will make way for the government to withdraw criminal cases, some of them of serious nature, against leaders and cadres of the political parties including former Maoist combatants. They could walk out in the name of political prisoners, cleared of all charges and convictions. The CK Raut-led Janamat Party has already set the precondition of withdrawal of cases against its leaders and cadres to join the government in the making. Naturally, the ordinance has drawn criticism from all quarters and pressure is mounting on President Bidya Devi Bhandari not to approve it. “It’s an absolutely wrong move. I wonder who gives suggestions like this to the government. This is unacceptable,” says political analyst Puranjan Acharya of the ordinance. “The present government, which is essentially a caretaker one after the elections, has no authority to bring such an ordinance. The new government can introduce laws through the parliament if it really needs to.” Some influential leaders of the Nepali Congress have also stood against the ordinance. They are putting pressure on the party leadership to withdraw it. Leaders like Shekhar Koirala, Gagan Kumar Thapa, Bishwa Prakash Sharma and Pradip Poudel have taken to social media to voice their opposition to the legal instrument. Sharma has said the ordinance was brought without any discussion in the party, while Thapa has called for immediate withdrawal of the ordinance ‘brought for the release of criminals’. The anti-establishment leader in the NC, Koirala has said the decision to release individuals convicted by the court through an ordinance is a mockery of the rule of law, parliamentary system and the spirit of politics and democracy. Poudel, meanwhile, has said the solution to all the problems has to be sought from the new parliament, not through ordinances. Bypassing the legislature is not a new phenomenon. Instead of facing the parliament, governments prefer to make laws through ordinances. This is not the first time a ruling party leader has relied on an ordinance on controversial topics. In August last year, the coalition government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba had brought an ordinance to amend some provisions of the Political Parties Act, 2017. The amendments were aimed at easing the procedure for political parties to split. The CPN-UML and Janata Samajbadi Party broke up on the back of the same ordinance. Prior to that, the former government of UML under KP Sharma Oli had also tried to push forth a similar ordinance. It was aimed at saving his government. Former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC says the government cannot withdraw cases in which the judiciary has already delivered its verdict, as such cases can no longer be considered cases of political nature. “It is a gross misuse of ordinance brought to serve political interests,” says KC. “If the government thinks there has been a miscarriage of justice, it can recommend the President to grant pardon in specific cases, but mass withdrawal of cases is against the rule of law.” Constitutional expert Adhikari says if the government thinks that certain cases should be withdrawn, it should prepare a document and discuss it in parliament, rather than introducing an ordinance. “Certain provisions made for a fixed period of the peace process cannot be extended for an indefinite period because the peace process has already concluded,” says Adhikari. Experts fear that the government move could open a Pandora’s Box of similar cases in the future, where people with political reach could easily get amnesty for their crimes.