Submit your Article

American Ambassador to Nepal Randy W. Berry has said that they have not threatened Nepali leaders on the issues relating to Millennium Challenge Corporation(MCC) Nepal compact.

Speaking with a group of journalists, the US envoy said: “We have not threatened Nepali leaders – that is false. But we are just asking Nepal to fulfill its commitments.”  He said American officials have had discussions with Nepali leaders – but not in the way characterized by some media and online portals.

“Whether the Nepali leaders ratify MCC is a decision for Nepal to make as a sovereign democratic nation and Nepal's decision alone.  After years of delays on following through on Nepal’s promise, we simply ask that ratifying the agreement be brought to a vote so the people through their elected officials have their say,” Ambassador Berry said. 

Unfortunately, this development program has been mired in disinformation.  This is disinformation about a program that is based on transparency, accountability, and democracy – who would be against that?, he added.

“In the initial days, the patriarchal society was reluctant to accept our leadership, an attitude that greatly dismayed and discouraged me,” says Sanju Kumari Chaudhari, deputy-mayor of Kohalpur municipality in the mid-western district of Banke. Many underestimated her, arguing women could not take up such a big responsibility.

But five years on, Chaudhari appears buoyant. “With the confidence I have gained, now I am capable of taking up the responsibility of mayor,” she says.

As their tenure draws to a close, ApEx talked to more than half a dozen local women leaders to learn of their experiences. Their experiences were varied but all of them spoke of having to battle patriarchy, with the society still reluctant to accept women leaders.

Says Menuka Kafle, vice-chairperson, National Association of Rural Municipalities of Nepal, women representatives are often questioned on their competence and knowledge.

“But in the past five years women leaders have proven themselves, in many cases performing better than their male counterparts,” says Kafle.

Gita Adhikari, deputy mayor of Damak municipality in the eastern district of Jhapa, also singles out the patriarchal mindset as the prominent challenge women leaders faced in the past five years.

They were also crippled by lack of experience, lack of clarity about their work, and in many places, denial of basic facilities such as vehicles for easy movement.

They gradually overcame such barriers as various organizations reached out to them with training and orientation programs.

Lack of education was another stumbling block for many women representatives. A study carried out by Asia Foundation in 2019 showed that the majority of women leaders had only basic education.

Only 12 percent of the surveyed women representatives were illiterate; another 22 percent were barely literate i.e. they could do basic reading and writing. The report emphasized the need for capacity building and a supportive environment for women in local bodies.

The 2017 elections were a watershed in women’s representation in politics and state mechanisms. A record 41 percent were elected in local governments.

Of the total 35,041 local representatives, 20,689 were male, and 14,352 female. Still, male chairs made for an overwhelming majority: of 6,473 ward chairs, there are only 62 women.

The parties mostly picked male candidates for mayoral posts and female candidates for deputy mayors in order to honor the constitutional position that one among the two should be female.

At the ward level, the Local Level Electoral Act 2017 has reserved two seats in each of the nearly 7,000 ward committees for women, one of whom has to be a Dalit.

Altogether 6,567 Dalit women were represented across the country but there was a lack of Dalit candidates in 175 wards. Over the past five years, an overwhelming number of women have served as deputies and members of the ward committees.

In 753 local governments, seven women are mayors and 11 are chairs of rural municipalities. In the first part of this series (see ‘A case of clashes egos, unclear roles’), we investigated efforts to minimize the role of women deputy mayors and legal bias against empowering deputies.

Some deputy mayors complain about not being allowed to exercise their legal rights. “I did not face such problems given my sound academic background,” says Adhikari. “But most other women representatives did.”

Adhikari, however, does not believe deputies don’t have any executive rights. “There is a lot of scope if women can be assertive. In many places, women’s handling of covid was greatly appreciated. Moreover, there is more transparency and less corruption in places with women at the helm,” she adds.

Says Meena Poudel, a political analyst, women who have served in local governments have mixed feelings about their roles. Some are encouraged and ready to take on bigger leadership roles while others are fed up by the many obstacles. “Along with giving women more space, the political parties are also obliged to create an environment for them to perform their duties.”

Political parties are still hesitant to allow local women leaders from contesting for chiefs of municipalities and rural municipalities. They reckon women do not have sufficient resources, particularly money, to win elections.

“The experience of the past five years shows that women can both win elections and perform their duties well,” says Chaudhari. “So the political parties have no excuse not to give women more leadership opportunities.”

Women’s presence in local governments has yielded some positive results. “They have tended to raise issues of gender violence and women’s health and education, which tend to be ignored by male representatives,” says Poudel.

Similarly, women have not resisted from taking austerity measures, cutting spending in non-productive sectors.

Women find it easier to share their problems with elected women representatives. They also find it easier to work on women-led social initiatives, which in turn has increased their social participation.

In the next local elections, women leaders are sure to press for more women candidates even as parties remain reluctant to go beyond the minimum constitutional limit of 33 percent.

One of the vital roles played by women in the past five years is as chairs of vice-chair-led judicial commissions, which are mandated to settle small disputes at local level. A study by the Municipal Association in 2021 suggests that women leaders are good at dispute-resolution through reconciliation.

Historically, women have had a poor presence in local bodies. In the 2010 municipal elections, Sadhana Devi Pradhan won the elections of Kathmandu municipal. In the first elections of local bodies held in 1991 after the restoration of democracy in 1990, only one percent of women were elected, a threshold that reached 21 percent in 1994 elections after the fielding of 20 percent women candidates was made legally mandatory. The number of female representatives is increasing in governance too.

Female representatives are earning public trust

Binod Poudel

Using data from citizen surveys (conducted by Kathmandu University, Interdisciplinary Analysts, and the Asia Foundation) and politicians’ surveys (conducted by Yale University, London School of Economics, Nepal Administrative Staff College and Governance Lab), we are beginning to better understand the functioning of local representatives. With respect to deputy mayors, two findings have already emerged.

First, deputy mayors are earning the trust of their constituents. Back in 2018, when local representatives had just assumed office, citizens had seen mayors more favorably than deputy mayors. But that is not the case now. This is consistent with India’s experience, where citizens have come to support local female politicians after seeing them perform.

Second, there seems to be an alignment of policy priorities between citizens and deputy mayors. While the alignment is not perfect, it is certainly not worse than the alignment of priorities between citizens and mayors.

In a survey last year, the majority of deputy mayors we interviewed expressed their intention to run for mayors in the next local elections. (The remaining forty percent had yet to make up their mind.) This kind of confidence among deputy mayors would have been unlikely had they not done well in office.

Poudel is a Kathmandu-based researcher on local bodies

Over the past few weeks, the US has been consistently pressing Nepal’s major political parties for parliamentary ratification of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact, under which Nepal is entitled to $500 million in grant. The effect of such pressure is starting to show.

The dispute over compact has sowed discord in the ruling coalition while the main opposition, CPN-UML, is also under pressure to reveal its official position. Speaker Agni Sapkota, meanwhile, has been postponing House meetings over UML’s parliament obstruction threats, hanging the compact’s fate in balance.     

The US wants a final decision on the MCC Nepal compact before the March meeting of the MCC Board of Directors, to be chaired by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken. Sources say the US is likely to turn on the heat on the Nepali leaders until the compact is approved.

Despite pressures from Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and the US, two coalition partners—CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist)—have not budged from their anti-compact positions. They want to change some of its provisions even though they have not specified them.

With the two major partners in the coalition vacillating on compact ratification, PM Deuba of Nepali Congress, which is in favor of the US grant, has reached out to the main opposition, UML, asking for its support.   

NC Leaders close to Deuba say the prime minister is even willing to break the coalition if the UML lends its support for the compact’s ratification. Ever since the UML was ousted from power last July, the party has been saying that the ruling coalition should first have a uniform view on the compact. The party says it currently has no position on it.

Rajan Bhattarai, head of UML Foreign Affairs Department, says despite some reservations the party had tried to push the compact when it was in power.

“But we are not in power now and our position on the matter does not mean much. Right now, there is no point in saying yes or no to the compact,” says Bhattarai.

But Speaker Sapkota has blamed the UML for disrupting the House and blocking the MCC bill from getting tabled, which Bhattarai denies.

Leaders close to PM Deuba say that if the UML lifts House obstruction and makes its position clear on the compact, NC will put pressure on Sapkota to table the bill in Parliament.

Additionally, Congress leaders believe that if the UML comes out openly in the compact’s favor, the Maoists and CPN (Unified Socialist) are likely to follow suit. They say the latter two do not want to be portrayed as standing in the way of compact ratification.

Though the UML is unlikely to go against the compact in the voting process, there is still a chance of resistance. Some UML leaders are against the party leadership issuing a whip on the compact. Given that the issue has deeply polarized Nepali public, they believe individual lawmakers should be allowed to use their conscience when voting on the compact.

PM Deuba seems to be in a fix. He is not getting the support of his own coalition partners but he cannot rely on the opposition either.

“The prime minister is determined to endorse the compact, irrespective of its implications for the coalition. That’s why he has been reaching out to the main opposition,” says Nain Singh Mahar, a Congress central working committee member.

The US is also doing its part to woo the UML. On February 8, US Ambassador to Nepal Randy W. Berry called on UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli at the latter’s residence in Balkot, Bhaktapur. In the meeting, the US envoy sought UML’s help in the compact’s endorsement.

Political parties are also under pressure to decide the compact’s fate after a joint letter submitted by PM Deuba and Maoist Center Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to the MCC was leaked. In the letter, the duo had committed to ratifying the compact by February-end.

The US has said that it will not wait for Nepali parties to endorse the compact.

After the letter signed by Deuba and Dahal became public on February 6, the heads of three major parties had gathered in Baluwatar, where the main opposition leader, Oli, urged the ruling parties to come up with a clear position.

Meanwhile, the announcement of local elections on May 13 has also complicated ratification. Parties now see the compact through the prism of elections. Not only in the Maoist and Unified Socialist, there are also voices in the NC that it would be wise to deal with the compact after the elections.

Coalition partners Maoist Center and Unified Socialist have already proposed putting the issue on hold until after the elections. Many political leaders believe a final decision on the compact now could impact their local poll prospects.

At the same time, there is also concern about possible consequences on Nepal’s economy if the US decides to withdraw the compact. 

Government Spokesperson Gyanendra Bahadur Karki said in a recent interview that withdrawal of the compact could have repercussions on the country’s economic development. A former Nepali ambassador to the US also declined to rule out an adverse impact on the Nepali economy if the MCC falls through.

Political parties are well aware of this. They are also worried about risking Nepal-US diplomatic ties.

PM Deuba is of the view that if the MCC bill is tabled in Parliament, it will give a message that Nepal has moved a step ahead towards its ratification. Some NC leaders suspect that the US could wait if the bill is tabled in the Parliament.  

But a member of the Speaker’s secretariat says there has been no headway on tabling the bill as the UML continues to obstruct the House.

“If there is an all-party consensus, the Speaker is ready for an alternative. But right now, he firmly believes the political environment for tabling the bill has not been created,” the secretariat member says on condition of anonymity.

Amid uncertainty over the compact, politicians are busy in intra-party parleys to discuss possible way outs. The Maoist party has called its central committee meeting for February 10, with the compact among key agendas. To support compact endorsement, the party will have to change its official policy.

Several influential leaders of the Maoist party have taken a hardline position on the compact, which has put Dahal in a difficult position.

Similarly, NC and UML are also holding intra-party parleys. Except for NC, other parties are in a moral crisis due to the public posturing of their leaders against the compact.

On the one hand, they do not want to project themselves as anti-MCC, and on the other, they want to take the credit for any possible changes in the compact.

In countries with a bicameral system, the upper house of parliament performs certain distinct duties to those undertaken by the lower house. Nepal has had a bicameral parliament since the 1950s, except for a brief hiatus during the partyless Panchayat regime (1960-1990) and the recent political transition (2006 to 2015).

The 2015 constitution has given continuity to the bicameral setup in the form of the National Assembly (NA) as the upper house and the House of Representatives (HoR) as the lower house of the federal parliament. On its website, the NA lists ‘providing expert service’ as one of its major functions. Except for this single task, the two houses perform similar tasks, such as formulation of laws and holding the government to account.

In many democracies, the functions of two houses are clearly articulated by the law so that they perform distinct tasks. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the main duties of the upper House of Lords are ‘examining bills, questioning government action, and investigating public policy.’ Its roles and responsibilities are clearly distinguished from those of the House of Commons.

In Nepal’s case, however, the upper house is struggling to establish a separate identity and there is growing disenchantment about its performance. The very idea of a bicameral legislature is being questioned, particularly after the recent assembly elections that elected mostly partisan, non-experts. 

So do we really need the National Assembly, then? Senior journalist Hari Bahadur Thapa, who also researches Nepal’s parliamentary system, says the core concept behind the assembly is to bring together a mature group of experts with deep knowledge on statecraft. The goal is to get them to offer expert guidance and advice to the government as well as the HoR.

“In a sense, it is a group of senior technocrats who delve into policy and law-making rather than engaging in day-to-day politics,” Thapa says. “But Nepal’s upper house has failed to measure up to its expectation.”

There are various factors behind the NA’s sub-par performance. Chiefly, the major parties are using the assembly to adjust leaders who have lost elections or those who have somehow not gotten respectable positions in the party structures.

For instance, Bam Dev Gautam of CPN-UML and Narayan Kaji Shrestha of CPN (Maoist Center), both of whom lost the 2017 parliamentary elections, are currently assembly members.

Influential political leaders want to be MPs as non-parliamentarians cannot become ministers for more than six months.

In the 59-member NA, an electoral college elects 56 members while the three remaining members are nominated. The three nominated seats have been reserved for experts. But as the government recommends these nominees, they are usually political appointees as well.  

Right now, Khim Lal Devkota, Bimala Rai Paudyal, and Ram Narayan Bidari occupy the nominated seats in the NA. Among the trio, only Devkota is not affiliated to any political party.   

NA member Prakash Pantha concedes that political parties are abusing the assembly to adjust those who lost the 2017 elections.

“The onus lies on political parties to honor the spirit of the constitution while selecting candidates. They should set the criteria for assembly candidates, emphasizing expertise over political allegiance,” he says.

Daman Nath Dhuganga, former speaker of parliament, agrees that the problem is in candidate-selection.

“The parties are reluctant to follow the constitution and are putting partisan interests above national interests,” Dhuagana says. “But then the National Assembly’s leadership is also struggling to assert its authority to safeguard the independence of the house. It is rather submitting to the wills of political parties and their leaders.”

The NA’s leadership was tested when the country faced a constitutional and political crisis after Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli dissolved the HoR in December 2020.

In the absence of the HoR, the assembly, which is a permanent legislative body, should have held the government to account. But it did no such thing. NA chair Ganesh Prasad Timalsena, who is from the CPN-UML, ran the House only for a few days to avoid criticism. After this instance, criticism of the assembly reached new heights. The upper house was accused of being no more than a government rubber-stamp. 

Another reason behind a weak assembly is the constitution itself. The national charter has not given the upper house any exclusive law-making right. As per the constitution, the government can present bills in the two houses of parliament but the assembly can neither approve nor disapprove the HoR-endorsed bills.

The provision of expert assembly members was envisioned to revise flaws and errors in the bills forwarded by the HoR. But then there is a paucity of experts in the NA to analyze the contents of such bills and offer corrections.

The NA must return a bill sent by the HoR within two months, either after endorsing it or recommending changes. When the HoR passed a passport-related bill in 2019, the assembly had pointed out several flaws in it and corrections were duly made. But such corrective measures are not possible without enough experts on board.

The NA’s performance has also been hamstrung by the inadequacies of funds and resources. A recent study report by Democracy Resource Center, an NGO, has pointed to the assembly’s lack of financial, physical and human resources, directly impacting the legislative process. The report titled ‘Legislative Procedures of the National Assembly’ says the assembly is short in computers, high-speed internet and office space.

Despite these inadequacies, the NA members can still work largely unhindered by the larger political upheavals. Unlike in the case of HoR members, assembly members do not have to toe party whip or serve specific electoral constituencies. This freedom allows the NA members to focus on issues of national importance.

Journalist Thapa says it is the assembly’s responsibility to ensure that the bills and decisions emanating from the HoR are not politically motivated, which has not been happening in Nepal.

“The upper house has failed to demonstrate the desired maturity and expertise and has been acting subordinate to the lower house,” Thapa says. “It has been found wanting on crucial tasks such as improving coordination between provincial and local governments.”

But despite the NA’s shortcomings, Thapa is averse to what he calls the radical idea of dissolving the upper house and adopting a unicameral system. “That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” he says.  

Thapa suggests reforming the NA, for instance by tweaking the current appointment system. “But as the custodians of the democratic process, things won’t improve much unless our political parties internalize the importance of a free and independent upper house.”

The Westminster parliamentary government has a long history in Nepal. Even before the establishment of democracy in 1951, the then Rana regime had envisaged a bicameral system in Nepal’s Interim Constitution 1947. The 1959 constitution also provided for a bicameral system. It was only during the Panchayat period that the country was under a unicameral Rashtriya Panchayat. The 1990 constitution again adopted bicameralism. 

After the political changes of 2006, the role of the country’s parliament was taken up by a Constituent Assembly elected to draft a new constitution. Between 2006 and 2015, Nepal had another period when it did not have two chambers of parliament with the CA performing the tasks of a legislative body as well. In 2015, the country once again adopted a bicameral system through the new constitution.

Balaram KC, a former Supreme Court judge, believes the bicameral legislature should not be discarded just because the current upper house has not been up to the task.

“Getting rid of the upper house could have bad consequences. The monopoly of a single chamber is never desirable. The idea does not sound democratic,” KC says. “As a democratic society, we should instead build pressure on our leadership to reform the house. Our political parties should also be responsible.”

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba seems bent on tabling the $500-million American grant agreement in the form of the under Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact in the current session of Parliament. He is requesting his coalition partners to allow him to do so. This is exactly what Americans have been saying to Nepal’s major parties: take it or leave it but decide on the compact right away.

Even as other members of the ruling coalition have rather ambiguous positions on the compact, PM Deuba’s position is clear enough: the compact is in national interest and must thus be ratified. As the compact begins to shake the roots of the current coalition, PM Deuba has offered a middle path to his partners CPN (Maoist Center) and CPN (Unified Socialist) to prevent a possible split in the coalition.

Deuba has reportedly told them that he would not ask coalition partners to vote either in favor of or against the compact. He only wants to be able to table it in parliament. But if tabled, the two parties will be in a tricky position of having to potentially vote against a parliamentary bill brought by its coalition partner.

Senior NC ministers are in regular consultations to convince coalition partners. On February 1, senior minister Gyanendra Bahadur Karki held a long conversation with CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Dahal and on February 2, Home Minister Balkrishna Khand held talks with CPN (Unified Socialist) Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal. Similarly, Deuba, Dahal, and Nepal have been meeting on a regular basis to find a common position.

In a meeting with Dahal and Nepal on February 2, PM Deuba said that he wants to endorse the MCC without breaking the five-party coalition. Discussions are underway to pass the MCC. The PM has sought a list of points that we want to amend, the coalition will remain intact, says Nepal.

Jagannath Khatiwada, the spokesperson of CPN (Unified Socialist), says PM Deuba is unlikely to push the compact at the cost of unraveling the ruling coalition. Deuba rather wants to table it and show the Americans that he did what he could, says Khatiwada.

CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is under pressure to take a position on the compact. On the one hand, Dahal, dispatching a letter, has assured the Americans that the compact would be endorsed by forging consensus. On the other hand, he has trained his cadres that the compact in its current form is unacceptable. The latter is also the formal position of the Maoist party.

According to leaders, Dahal would prefer to discuss the compact only after elections, with the society bitterly divided on it. But the Americans have repeatedly conveyed that they cannot wait till elections and the compact must be endorsed from the current parliament session.

In this context, Dahal is consulting party colleagues to find a face-saver. He has shared with his close aides that the party could choose not to impose whip in the voting process, allowing lawmakers to use their conscience. Similarly, Dahal has told party colleagues that Deuba has agreed to endorse a parliamentary resolution motion stating that the compact is not a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and Nepal will as such not join any military alliance.

Says NC leader Pushpa Bhushal, this option has been considered in the political circles for a long time. “The first order of business is to table the MCC bill in the full House. Only after that will the resolution motion and other issues be discussed,” says Bhushal.

This, Dahal believes, could provide another face-saver. Another coalition partner CPN (Unified Socialist) led by Madhav Kumar Nepal agrees. Of late, Nepal has not spoken publicly about the compact but senior leader Jhala Nath Khanal has been insistent that it can be endorsed only after amendments. Khanal also claims to have received some new documents, which will take some time to study. But the office of MCC in Nepal has clarified that there are no such documents that remain to be studied.

At the same time, Speaker Agni Sapkota has hardened his position on the compact. To table the MCC bill in full House, Sapkota has set three conditions, according to a member of his secretariat: consensus among parties, addressing of public issues over the compact, and lifting of UML’s parliament obstruction as the compact cannot be endorsed otherwise. So, without an agreement among Deuba, Nepal, and Dahal, the speaker is unlikely to cooperate.

But the ball is still largely in Deuba’s court. If he is determined to endorse the compact irrespective of its consequences on the coalition, an entirely new political scenario could emerge. First, if the speaker refuses to budge from his position, PM Deuba has to remove the speaker and for that he needs the support of UML, which means a breakdown of the ruling coalition. 

UML may help Deuba remove the speaker but it is uncertain if it will continue to support Deuba as PM. Says CPN (Unified Socialist)’s Khatiwada, UML, in this scenario, may ask for government leadership. Moreover, if Deuba dissolves the parliament, the Supreme Court is likely to restore it. At the same time, Deuba is cautious that a split in the coalition could bring the communist parties together, which will make it difficult for NC to emerge as the largest electoral force.

So there are chances of Deuba convincing Americans that he did what he could, and thus the ruling coalition will also continue.

There are growing concerns inside the Nepali Congress about the electoral consequences of Deuba’s stand in the compact’s favor. Whether the compact moves ahead or not, communist parties are sure to make it a major election plank, much to the detriment of Congress.

As the UML is to take a position on the compact, members of the ruling coalition fear that the party could, in the lead up to elections, heap all the blame for the compact’s endorsement on the ruling coalition.

Leaders of the Maoist Center and CPN (Unified Socialist) are trying to convince NC leaders that it would be prudent to take a final call on the compact only after elections.

As the compact continues to create friction among coalition partners, UML is keenly watching. It has been saying that the ruling coalition has a comfortable majority to endorse the compact, and as such there is no question of its support.

The coming week is going to be crucial, as the prime minister wants to table the MCC bill in Parliament on February 9. Nepali Congress leaders say, in the worst-case scenario, the parliament could be dissolved, again to the benefit of the UML.

Shariful Islam is an Assistant Professor in International Relations at the University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh. He is the author of ‘Fifty Years of Bangladesh-India Relations: Issues, Challenges and Possibilities’ (2021, Pentagon Press, New Delhi) and co-author of ‘Covid-19 Global Pandemic and Aspects of Human Security in South Asia: Implications and Way Forward’ (2020, Pentagon Press, New Delhi). His research interests include foreign policy of Bangladesh, blue economy Diplomacy and economic diplomacy. Kamal Dev Bhattarai spoke to him to solicit his views on how Bangladesh deals with big powers, and particularly China.

Bangladesh occupies an important position geopolitically. How does it deal with big powers?

The location of Bangladesh makes it geo-strategically important for both regional and extra-regional powers. In addition, for many, Bangladesh has become a ‘development miracle’ from an ‘international basket case’. This rising socio-economic status of the country also attracts big powers. In fact, Bangladesh is one of the few countries that maintain warm relations with regional and extra-regional powers. Bangladesh sees big powers—i.e. US, Russia, China, Japan, India—as opportunities to strengthen the existing development and economic partnership.

How is Bangladesh maintaining balanced relations with India and China?

Bangladesh, under the current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (2009-present), follows the foreign policy philosophy of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, i.e. ‘friendship to all, malice to none’. Therefore, Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina views India and China as friends, as development partners. Bangladesh prioritizes economic diplomacy, the well-being of the people in formulating its foreign policy objectives. Therefore, Bangladesh is maintaining warm relations with both India and China, which is beneficial to the people of the country and beyond.

What lessons can Bangladesh offer to other South Asian countries on dealing with China?

In fact, every country’s context, geography, location and other foreign policy parameters are different. So there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. But Bangladesh is an interesting case to study how it maintains warm relations with both India and China. China and India are two largest trading and development partners of Bangladesh. In this case, the leaders of Bangladesh and their foreign policy philosophy helped develop warm relations with these two Asian giants. The current Prime Minister of Bangladesh is the daughter of Bangabandhu, the founding father of Bangladesh who formulated Bangladesh’s earlier-mentioned foreign policy principle.

Bangabandhu’s foreign policy principle helped Bangladesh emancipate its people from poverty and hunger, and to make it self-reliant. Therefore, Bangabandhu’s emphasis on economic diplomacy has inspired the current prime minister as well. Thus, Bangladesh prioritizes economic diplomacy in its international relations including in its relations with China which helped the country be a ‘development miracle’. In addition, Bangladesh negotiates and calculates well while taking Chinese loans so it does not fall under the so-called ‘debt trap’.

In fact, South Asian countries cannot afford to neglect China. They need to engage China constructively for economic gains, for the welfare and benefits of the people, rather than for the narrowly defined interest of a particular regime. In case of loans from China, South Asian countries including Nepal need to negotiate well for a better deal. The case of Sri Lanka should not be repeated.

Relations with India and China often become a domestic political agenda in South Asian countries. How is it in Bangladesh?

Some previous regimes in Bangladesh, particularly the BNP-Jamaat regime, used India, China for their political purposes. For instance, existing literature suggests that the ‘anti-India’ stand was a common feature in Bangladesh politics during the BNP-Jamaat regime. But after Sheikh Hasina came to power in 2009, Bangladesh deepened its ties with both India and China as the Hasina regime realized the importance of these two countries for the socio-economic uplift of the people of Bangladesh. And consequently, Sheikh Hasina’s ‘friendship to both India and China and malice to none’ policy helped Bangladesh move forward. This is the reason that even though Sino-Indian rivalry has impacted many countries, Bangladesh is not that affected.

How should Nepal deal with emerging China?

I am afraid that I am not an expert on Nepal. But as a foreign policy student, I can say Nepal’s geo-strategic location is very important for big powers including India and China. This location can be used for the country’s socio-economic development. Nepal can study Bangladesh and shape its policies if that suits it, though Nepal’s own context will determine its foreign policy orientation. One thing I want to emphasize is the role of political regimes and visionary leaders, which are essential for Nepal. In the case of Bangladesh, the visionary and patriotic leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and later her daughter Sheikh Hasina changed the fate of tens of millions of people in the country, and changed the global status of the country by following peaceful international relations.

Thus the regimes in Nepal need to think about long-term welfare and benefit of the Nepali people while dealing with emerging China. Here it can be reiterated that every country in South Asia including Nepal needs to engage China constructively. The bottom-line is that Nepal needs to maintain a balanced approach with China and India with economic diplomacy as a priority. In this case, the role of the media, academia, and other civil society organizations and people at large becomes necessary.

Following the formation of the five-party coalition government led by Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba last July, Nepal and India have held a series of meetings. In this period, high-level American officials visited Nepal to consult on bilateral issues including on the much-debated Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact.

But with China, except for a phone conversation between the two foreign ministers and a few bilateral mechanism-level meetings, there has been limited engagement. Both sides blame Covid-19 for such a situation, but then high-level Chinese officials have been touring other countries even in this period.

Observers say some issues that evolved over the past few years have created mistrust between Kathmandu and Beijing. The pace of engagement with China was already down when CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli was the prime minister. “That downward trend has continued even after the formation of the new coalition government under Deuba,” says Upendra Gautam, General Secretary at China Study Center, a Kathmandu-based think-tank.

Many believe the current government has, instead of building trust, upset China, for instance by raising the issue of China’s alleged border encroachment without consulting Beijing. A few weeks after taking over government reins, PM Deuba formed a panel to investigate alleged Chinese encroachment in Humla district. The panel subsequently flagged some issues.

Foreign Policy analyst Rupak Sapkota says many in China saw this as an attempt to divert attention from the ongoing border dispute with India: it is not only with India that Nepal has border disputes but also with China. “The government further fueled this narrative by raising the Humla issue, which did not go down well in Beijing,” says Sapkota.

Nepal’s reluctance to appoint its China envoy has also raised eyebrows in Beijing. After recalling the ambassadors appointed by the previous government , the Deuba government nominated new ambassadors to India, the US, and the UK, but not to China. This suggests China is not its priority. A Maoist leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says coalition partners have been pressing PM Deuba to appoint the ambassador to China but PM Deuba continues to demur.

Travel restrictions imposed by China to control the spread of Covid-19 have also limited bilateral exchanges. Direct flights between Kathmandu and Beijing are yet to restart, severely affecting people’s movements. Hundreds of Nepali students have been barred from joining physical classes in Chinese universities. Similarly, movements at two major border points at Tatopani and Rasuwagadi have been restricted.

Moreover, there has been mistrust between Nepali Congress and CPN-UML on foreign policy over the past two years—and this mistrust has continued. In 2021, a Congress team led by Jeevan Bahadur Shahi, now the chief minister of Karnali province, visited the Nepal-China border at Humla district and came up with a report concluding that China has encroached on Nepali lands, much to the latter’s chagrin. The Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu then dispatched a letter to Congress expressing serious reservations.

Similarly, Chinese state mouthpiece Global Times ran a series of reports slamming the border report and dubbing Congress ‘pro-India’. Even after Deuba became prime minister, Global Times had on July 19 ran an article under the title ‘China-Nepal ties solid despite pro-India leader.’ The article by Zhang Jiadong, a professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University, said “Deuba's rise to power may tilt Nepal a bit toward India, but he will not change the basic idea of multilateral balanced diplomacy between China, India and the third-party countries.”

Another issue that is creating suspicion is China’s close involvement with Nepali communist parties, culminating in the 2018 merger between CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center). Many in Congress have come to believe that China tilts towards communist parties. Even now, China is pushing for the unification of Nepali communist parties, suggesting it prioritizes party-to-party relations instead of state-to-state relations.

But then China is keen on highlighting the Congress party’s historical contribution to cementing Nepal-China ties. NC and China have enjoyed cordial relations since the 1960s. During his Nepal visit in 2019, Chinese President Xi said: “The Chinese people will not forget the Nepali Congress Party's important contributions to the development of China-Nepal relations during the party’s ruling period.” A China watcher requesting anonymity says China has often failed to understand Nepal’s multi-party character, and thus its emphasis on communist unity. 

Growing geopolitical tensions and changing balance of power may be another reason for limited Nepal-China engagement. The China watcher says as the US, India and other western powers are closely watching or providing prescriptions on Nepal’s dealings with China, the current government is also under pressure to minimize engagement with the northern neighbor.

Not everything is downhill though. Despite the mistrust at the top political level, there has been steady communication between the two countries. When Deuba was appointed prime minister on 13 July 2021 following a Supreme Court order, there was no immediate response from the Chinese government. But on Julgauy 28, Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang sent a congratulatory message to PM Deuba, soon after he secured the vote of confidence in parliament.

In his message, the Chinese primer said, “China and Nepal are friendly neighbors linked by mountains and rivers,” while also hailing the two countries' solidarity and mutual help in the face of difficulties. Before that, on July 16, three days after Deuba became prime minister, China announced an additional two million doses of vaccines in grant. Both in terms of grant and commercial purchases, China has become the largest vaccine exporter to Nepal. According to Xinhua, along with the first 800,000 jabs of China-donated Sinopharm Covid-19 vaccines that arrived in Nepal on 29 March 2021, Nepal has so far received 13.8 million doses of Chinese vaccines.

On 19 October 2021, the two sides discussed each other’s concerns at length, for the first time since the formation of the new government. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a long phone conversation with his Nepali counterpart Narayan Khadka, including on the border. He expressed a willingness “to share China's development opportunities with Nepal and jointly build the Belt and Road Initiative with high quality, help boost Nepal's economic and social development, and build a closer China-Nepal community with a shared future.” The Chinese side also requested Nepal to participate in the China-led Global Development Initiative aimed at supporting the development of developing countries, promote post-pandemic global economic recovery and strengthen international development cooperation.

Though the current state of relationship under the Deuba-led government may not significantly affect overall ties, it may create an imbalance in Nepal’s foreign policy. “There is an all-party consensus in Nepal that we should have a balanced relationship with at least the major powers, which the current trend could undermine,” Sapkota notes.

Gautam of CSC also suspects Covid-19 pandemic is not the only reason behind the thinning of engagement. For instance, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently went to Maldives and Sri Lanka but did not come to Nepal. For the Chinese, implementation of foreign agreements during President Xi’s official visits remains a priority. The Chinese side is of the view that agreements reached between the two countries during Xi’s visit to Nepal in 2019 should be thoroughly implemented, says Gautam. “But our unwillingness to implement the agreements has raised questions about our country’s credibility,” he adds.

Box

Where is the railway?

The much-hyped cross-border railway is not making any headway. Both the sides blame the pandemic for the delay in starting its feasibility study. In the first week of January, there was a virtual meeting between Nepal’s Department of Railway and China’s National Railway Administration about the same.

“Covid-19 has affected the feasibility study even though the two sides agreed to it during Chinese President Xi’s Nepal visit,” says Deepak Kumar Bhattarai, Director-General of Nepal’s Department of Railway. During his visit, the two sides had also reiterated their commitment to extend cooperation on the Kathmandu-Pokhara-Lumbini railway. Funding for the feasibility is yet to be discussed. Nepal has been requesting China to conduct the feasibility study on a grant basis, while China insists that Nepal should share costs.

Despite the slow progress, the Chinese have communicated their commitment to building the railway. In his video message to the International Conference on Nepal’s Reconstruction 2021 held on December 7, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, “China will make solid progress in the feasibility study of a cross-border railway project, improve the Trans-Himalayan Multi-dimensional Connectivity Network, and help Nepal realize its dream of changing from a ‘land-locked country’ to a ‘land-linked country’.”

In their first five-year tenure, local governments came into limelight for both good and bad reasons. Among the most prominent issues to hinder their functioning were disputes between chiefs and their deputies.

After the last local elections in 2017, women secured 91 percent of the deputy positions—deputy mayors in municipalities and vice-chairpersons in rural municipalities—while men bagged 98 percent of chief positions. This gender disparity certainly contributed to many disputes but there were plenty of other factors as well.

Different places had different root causes of disputes between the chiefs and their deputies. The local units with the chiefs and deputies from separate parties saw most disputes, as they jostled for influence.

Similarly, many places saw an unhealthy competition to take credit for development projects, as each tried to allocate more funds for his or her own constituency. In a classic case, Kathmandu Metropolitan City’s mayor Bidhya Sundar Shakya from CPN-UML famously clashed with deputy mayor Hari Prabha Khadgi from Nepali Congress.

They never had cordial relations. In April 2019, Mayor Shakya accused his deputy of deferring action against the traders who had allegedly encroached on Khulamanch, an open space in Kathmandu. A war of words ensued. Earlier, in 2018, the two had publicly clashed over Ranipokhari reconstruction.

In comparison, the local bodies with both heads and deputies from the same party saw fewer clashes. In Kavrepalnchowk district, all local bodies had chiefs and deputy chiefs from the same parties. “We have seen reports of clashes between the two executives in dozens of local governments but in our district there is relative harmony,” says Udhav KC, chief of the district coordination committee.

There is also a lack of clarity on individual roles and responsibilities. The Local Government Operation Act 2017 provides for many overlapping responsibilities, inviting interference in each other’s jurisdiction.

For instance, the deputy chairs a three-member Judicial Committee that is mandated to settle local-level disputes. But the chiefs have tended to poke their noses into such cases, as they feel entitled to do so.

Moreover, there is a sizable section of chiefs who believe the post of deputies is largely ceremonial as it is they who exercise all executive powers in municipalities and rural municipalities.

In fact, most duties of deputies are related to monitoring, supervision, and work-facilitation, with he or she getting to enjoy executive rights only in the absence of the chief.

Bansalal Tamang, general secretary, National Association of Rural Municipalities, says there have been efforts to clarify the jurisdictions of chiefs and deputies through orientation programs. “Initially, there was a lot of tussle. But with greater clarity over individual jurisdictions, most local-level disputes these days tend to be political,” he says.  

There have also been instances of the male chiefs questioning their female deputies’ work and education credentials. The Act envisions voluntary transfer of some power from the chiefs to his deputies but that is hardly happening.

In some other places, there have been disputes when the deputies asked for the same kind of facilities that the chiefs were getting.

The local bodies in (now) Madhes province saw most tussles between chiefs and deputies, as they were invariably from different parties. Prabhakar Yadav, Chief of District Coordination Committee Saptari, gives the example of the Chhinnamast Rural Municipality, where the municipal council has not sat in two years due to the internecine disputes between the chief and deputy.

Speaking to ApEx, vice-chair of Chhinnamasta Rural Municipality Usha Kumar Mandal confessed to her long-standing problems with chair Surya Naryan Mandal. “Our development projects and service-delivery have been badly affected due to the chair’s monopoly, and it is difficult for me to work as vice-chair,” she says.

There have been similar cases in local governments of Rautahat district. In Yamunamai Rural Municipality, the tussle between chief Shree Prasad Machida and deputy Gita Devi Sah has for years crippled the rural municipality’s functioning.

There are no mechanisms to look into the disputes between the chiefs and the deputies. This is one issue that must be resolved ahead of the next local elections. But till date the federal government seems noncommittal. Journalist Gita Chimoriya, who closely tracks local level disputes across the country, speaks of the urgent need to set up a mechanism that closely and continuously monitors such disputes and offers solutions.

“In the course of my study of local bodies, I have come across instances of nasty disputes. In some places, the chiefs and deputies do not even speak to each other,” says Chimoriya.

Basanta Adhikari, spokesperson at the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, says resolution of such disputes falls under the jurisdiction of provincial governments, not the federal government.

Major duties of chiefs

·         Organizing and leading the meeting of the municipal executive committee

·         Presenting and endorsing the list of agenda in all meetings

·         Preparing annual budget and program 

·         Calling the meeting of Municipal Assembly

·         Overseeing and monitoring day-to-day functioning

(The chief has 12 major ‘concrete’ responsibilities)

Major duties of deputy

·         Coordinator of Judicial Committee

·         Coordination of programs related to non-governmental organizations

·         Coordination of activities related to consumer welfare

·         Monitoring, supervising, and reporting local government’s programs

·         Member of local resource estimation and budget ceiling determination committee 

(Deputy has eight, mostly ill-defined responsibilities)

Source: Local government operation Act 2017