Submit your Article

Locals of Khokana, a small ancient village on the southern outskirts of Kathmandu Valley, are protesting the government’s plans to build the Kathmandu-Nijgadh expressway through the village. They say the massive construction project will destroy their rich Newari heritage. Various Janajati groups and organizations are supporting their cause, as they feel it is a violation of Janajati people’s land rights.

But even with this support, the government has chosen to ignore them. According to some, this indicates a weakening of the Janajati movement in Nepal. (As per the 2011 national census, Janajatis comprise 35.4 percent of the total population of 26.4 million.) The various Janajati groups that appeared stronger than even some of the big political parties six or seven years ago are now struggling for survival. Their involvement in lobbying and creating awareness on Janajati issues has also waned considerably.

Golden era

Janajati and adivasi agendas started coming to the fore of national politics in an organized way after the 1990 political change. Before that, the Janajati political agendas like the right to self-determination, secularism, and federalism were largely ignored. It was only after the 1990 constitution guaranteed fundamental rights of all citizens that Janajati activists started organizing themselves. After that, the Maoist movement played a key role in establishing Janajati issues. The Maoist party had federated the country into 14 states and named them after various ethnicities, which in turn earned the party the support of various Janajati groups. The second Jana Andolan in 2006 was another turning point in the growth of the Janajati movement. It was then that political parties brought Janajatis on board by supporting their agenda of regional autonomy and right to self-determination.

In the first Constituent Assembly, there was a sizable presence of Janajati lawmakers from across the political spectrum. The Maoist party, which emerged the largest in 2008 CA elections, backed the demands of the Janajati constituency. Altogether, 198 lawmakers formed a cross-party caucus to jointly fight for Janajati rights. Due to the pro-Janajati position of the Maoist party and cross-party consensus, the first CA took several monumental decisions. For instance, its State Restructuring and Distribution of State Power Committee submitted a report proposing 14 provincial units based on ethnic/community identity.

Hence, 2005-2012 is considered the golden period of the Janajati movement. The Janajati groups had put up a strong fight to save the first CA, to no avail, and the assembly was dissolved in May 2012 without promulgating a constitution. Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, which opposed identity-based federal structures, emerged as the dominant parties in the second Constituent Assembly. The second CA refused to accept the reports of its first avatar. “The Janajati movement started on a downward spiral after the second Constituent Assembly came into being in 2014, from which the movement has yet to recover,” says Om Gurung, an academic and a Janajati campaigner. Even the Maoist party, which had strongly advocated ethnicity-based federalism, has now abandoned that agenda.

2015 constitution

Arguing that identity-based federalism would lead to conflict, NC and UML opted for crafting provinces based on their financial viability rather than their ethnic make-up. Janajati leaders thus believe their key demands remain unfulfilled. For instance, some Janajati lawmakers from Province 3 had proposed that their province be named Newa-Tamsaling, in lieu of the two ethnic communities in the region, but the majority ruling party lawmakers named it Bagmati, after a river. 

Gurung says one of the core Janajati demands on the establishment of a secular state was achieved in the new constitution, “and yet the caveat that secularism is tantamount to protecting the Sanatan Hindu religion hollowed it out.” On language, all languages spoken in the country were accepted as national languages, even as the official language remained Nepali.

Some indigenous rights are protected under the fundamental rights of the new constitution. Article 42 guarantees social justice rights for Janajatis and ensures their participation in state bodies based on their population estimates. Similarly, Article 18 ensures right to equality, as it states that the state shall not discriminate citizens on grounds of origin, religion, race, caste, tribe, sex, economic condition, language, region, ideology, or similar grounds. Janajati leaders, however, say laws are yet to be formulated to implement these fundamental constitutional rights.

Likewise, according to Article 261, there shall be an Indigenous Nationalities Commission. The government has already formed Madhesi, Tharu and Muslim commissions but not the indigenous commission. “This shows the ruling Nepal Communist Party and the government it leads are not in favor of the walfare of Janajatis,” says Dev Kumar Sunuwar, Editor of indigenousvoice.com, an online portal dedicated to Janajati issues.

Ruling party and the movement

With the formation of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP)-led government two and a half years ago, there has been a systematic effort to suppress the movement, say Janajati leaders. According to them, the ongoing protest in Khokana is a case in point. NEFIN and other Janajati groups accuse the government of trying to finish off the culture and identity of the local community in Khokana. They complain of similar efforts to keep Janajati communities away from natural resources and displace them from their traditional places in the name of development.

“Neither have their constitutional rights been granted nor are the Janajatis in a position to amend the constitution,” rues Gurung. The ruling NCP was formed after the 2018 unification of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center). The UML leadership has always been against all kinds of identity movements. The Maoist party was more sympathetic to their cause—and many leaders in the ruling party from the Maoist background still are.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, however, thinks the 2015 constitution has already addressed most demands of Janajatis. With a strong NCP-controlled government at the center, as well as in six of the seven provinces, Janajati agendas have weakened. It does not help that leaders form the community who are in positions of power have abandoned their traditional agenda. For instance, of the seven chief ministers, two—Province 1 Chief Minister Sher Dhan Rai and Gandaki province Chief Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung—are from the Janajati community. So is the country's vice-president, Nanda Bahadur Pun. Yet seldom do they raise the agendas identified with the Janajati movement. 

Photo Source: Indigenous Voice

Likewise, there are several Janajati ministers in the federal and provincial cabinets. Repeating after Oli, they say there is no need for another Janajati movement as the constitution has already secured most of their rights.

Government and foreign support

In recent years, the government has reduced the budget for the National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities (NFDIN), the autonomous organization for the welfare of indigenous nationalities that was established following the restoration of democracy in 1990. Its current vice-chair Gokul Gharti says some budget cuts are understandable as more resources are going to provincial and local governments. However, he says the cuts have been so deep that the organization is now struggling to function effectively.

Similarly, the international community has stopped supporting awareness and livelihood projects of the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN). Just like NFDIN, NEFIN was established in 1991 as an autonomous group and the only representative umbrella organization of 59 indigenous nationalities or peoples of Nepal. During the second Jana Andolan, the United Kingdom’s Department of International Development (DFID) had supported the NEFIN. “These days, the leadership of NEFIN is not active in approaching donor agencies, nor do donor agencies seem interested. The government has also been calling on donor agencies to stop funding NEFIN projects, often by giving them wrong information on Janajatis,” says Gurung.

Dev Kumar Sunuwar agrees that the international support for Janajatis has dried up due to “close monitoring of international assistance that comes to Janajati organizations”.

Role of NEFIN

NEFIN currently has under its umbrella 56 distinct indigenous member organizations across Nepal. During the second Jana Anadolan, NEFIN had played a key role in rallying the Janajati constituency in the movement against the monarchy. At the same time, espying the power of Janajati leaders to earn them vital votes, political parties started courting them. As a result, NEFIN was thoroughly politicized. Janajati leaders close to ruling NCP are no longer interested in taking up any movement. “This is why NEFIN has become incapable of launching a decisive movement by taking all sections on board,” says Gurung.

Furthermore, there is competition among top political leaders to induct the Janajati leaders close to them into the federation. Vice-chair Magar dismisses the charge that his organization has become dysfunctional, arguing that it is still busy. “Hitting the street is only one form of agitation. We are preparing for another movement, but in a different way. We are educating our constituency and are in constant touch with members of other marginalized groups to develop a common front,” says Magar. He explains that the organization is now working on forming a clear vision and actively courting the international community. But says journalist Sunuwar, absence of strong leadership further weakens      the NEFIN.

With Madhes-based parties

Madhes-based parties and Janajati groups have been trying to launch a joint movement for constitution amendment. The newly formed Janata Samajbadi Party is holding talks with various Janajati groups for the same.

NEFIN’s Magar states, “We should not reject the constitution but continue our struggle to secure the rights of Madhesis and Janajatis. For that we need to review the past movement and prepare for the next one.”      

In the past, Madhesi and Janajati forces were on the same page on multiple issues. But after the promulgation of the constitution, journalist Sunuwar observes, the government has taken a ‘divide and rule’ approach. “With a purpose of dividing indigenous communities, the government formed separate commissions for Thaus, Madhesis, and Dalits,” says Sunuwar.

However, according to Keshav Jha, a Janata Samajbadi leader, discussions to create a Madhesi-Janajati alliance are still underfoot. But Janajati experts are not hopeful. There are top Madhesi leaders in parliament to take up Madhesi issues, but there are no such Janajati leaders to do the same for      Janajati issues. Most Janajati leaders espousing the community’s traditional agendas lost the 2017 elections.

But senior lawyer Shankar Limbu, a long-time advocate of Janajati rights, has a different take on the Janajati movement. He says the movement is not dying, only changing its shape. The real Janajati movement has only just begun, he argues, and it is entirely different from the previous center-based street protests. “The Janajati movement has reached the community level, as in Khokana. There are other examples where Janajati people have protested against various hydropower projects for violating their land rights, for instance in Lamjung, Tanahu, Rasuwa and Palpa districts,” he says.

“There continues to be strong Janajati resistance movements in various parts of the country,” adds Limbu, and that it is difficult to suppress such community-level movements. These days, Janajati groups are also engaged in rigorous research, while new Janajati associations are being formed in education and other sectors. All this, says Limbu, will give the movement a new shape and strength. That, alas, is a minority view among Janajati activists.

Any future projection of the Nepali economy has become increasingly difficult due to the highly uncertain course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Factoring in severe impacts on hotels, restaurants, domestic and international transport, and other areas, the Central Bureau of Statistics has projected national economic growth to shrink to 2.27 percent against the government’s aim of seven percent. But, again, this can only be a tentative estimate at best. 

Accompanying this economic decline will be widespread joblessness across all sectors. Covid-19 is leading to dramatic job losses across the world and young people in particular are suffering a great deal. In our case, thousands of youths have already lost their jobs, while thousands more employed in Gulf countries are returning to Nepal after being relieved of their professional duties. 

Dr. Anup Subedee, an infectious disease physician, says although it is hard to project the future trajectory of the virus, it could still be active in Nepal until April-May next year. “Perhaps if our labor destination countries can control the virus before we control it here in Nepal, our youths can go back to their jobs abroad after PCR testing.”

According to a National Planning Commission (NPC) report, around 700,000 Nepali migrant workers could return due to the Covid-19 crisis. Another 300,000 are expected to come back from India. They will add to the burden of joblessness. The Economic Survey of Nepal 2020/2021 says around half a million youths enter the country’s labor force each year. 

The survey says, without giving any numbers, that there is a huge gap between job demand and job creation. There are also no official figures on the number of jobs created in Nepal every year. What can be said with more certainty is that till the fiscal 2019-2020, around five million Nepalis had gone abroad, excluding India, seeking employment opportunities. 

Prolonged political instability contributed to an unstable economic climate for most of the past three decades. In the absence of jobs at home, youths sought the shores of the Gulf and other countries. On an institutional basis, Nepal issues labor permits to 110 countries, while permits on an individual basis are issued for 172 countries. 

Pre-Covid days 

The NPC’s third Nepal Labor Survey (2017-18) says working age population (15+) had a share of 71.5 percent (20.7 million) of the total population, of which 55.6 percent were females. Of approximately 20.7 million working-age people, 7.1 million were employed, while 908,000 were unemployed, translating into an unemployment rate of 11.4 percent. Moreover, females reported unemployment rate of 13.1 percent, 2.8 percentage points higher than males.

There were also geographical disparities. Bagmati province reported the lowest unemployment rate (seven percent) while Province 2 reported the highest (20.1 percent). Says the NPC survey: “One in every five people who had jobs in Nepal were employed in agriculture, the biggest employing industry. Trade-industry had the second largest share of employment (17.5 percent), followed by construction (13.8 percent). The informal sector had the biggest share of 62.2 percent.”  

The hope was that the new government, with its two-thirds majority, would herald an era of stability and create many new jobs. But the expectation had proved misplaced, even before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic

Public health experts say that even if the current wave of Covid-19 contagion is contained, there is always a chance of another wave as a vaccine is still uncertain. Since the start of the lockdown on March 24, economic activities are yet to fully resume, and things could get worse. 

Data from the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) suggests that during the lockdown, which lasted a little over three months, four percent of industries were in full operation, 35 percent were partially operational, and 61 percent were closed. In this period, “there was a 22.4 percent layoff in industries and businesses. Two-thirds of manpower hired as temporary staff or on contract basis lost their jobs.” Hotels, restaurants, transport and education suffered the most, the NRB data show.

According to the Hotel Association of Nepal (HAN), around 700,000 people are employed in hotels. HAN President Shreejana Rana says hotels have no policy of expelling workers. “There has been an agreement that hotels will continue to pay some amount to their workers until the end of December,” she says, with the exact amount depending on the hotel’s profitability. Rana says there has been no forced layoffs, even though workers have the choice of voluntary retirement. 

Another hard-hit area, according to the NRB survey, is transport. Saroj Sitaula, general secretary of the Federation of Nepali National Transport Entrepreneurs, says the sector employs a million people.  During the lockdown, public transport was completely halted and workers were left in a lurch. Most workers in the sector don’t have formal appointment letters and as such, no social security as well. According to Sitaula, there is no record of how many people in transport have lost their jobs since the start of the lockdown. 

“Some have returned to work with the resumption of transport, but entrepreneurs are still struggling to provide them with a timely salary,” he says. 

Education has also been hit hard. Schools, colleges, and consultancy services are closed. Some colleges and universities are holding their classes online but, as guardians are reluctant to pay for this form of education, many teachers have not been paid. 

Axe falls on the small

According to the UNDP-Nepal’s “Rapid Assessment of the Social and Economic Impacts of COVID-19”, both formal and informal micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) with low cash-to-asset ratio have been affected. “We find that every three in five employees have lost their jobs in the micro and small businesses that were surveyed; [these businesses] have seen a fall of 95 percent in average monthly revenue,” the report says.  

Says another survey undertaken by the International Labor Organization (ILO), “between 1.6 and 2.0 million jobs are likely to be disrupted in Nepal in the current crisis, either with complete job loss or reduced working hours and wages.” 

The impact on labor differs by the nature of contract. Permanent workers get pay cuts or unpaid hiatus, backed by strong labor laws that discourage layoffs. Seasonal and informal workers, who represent 60 percent of the labor force, on the other hand, can be fired, according to the UNDP report. Temporary workers, internal migrants and day laborers are the most vulnerable. Nor can these workers find alternative work easily. 

Approximately 5.7 million or 80.8 percent of workers in Nepal are a part of the informal economy. The majority of workers in all sectors are informally employed, including the sectors facing the highest degree of disruption: construction (97 percent informal employment), trade (74 percent) and manufacturing (84 percent), says the ILO survey. 

Yet the chances of job-creation in the near future are dismal.  Says economist Biswo Poudel, “The demand for bank loans is very low, including from the industries, which suggests our industries don’t want to spend and therefore, new jobs are not being created”.

According to him, the government has failed to come up with a policy of job-creating through the identification of growth areas. “The monetary and other policies are targeted at survival not job-creation. There is, for instance, great prospect of creating new jobs in the online business and yet, there is no incentive for those interested,” Poudel adds. 

Areas of interest

An NPC panel formed to gauge the impact of Covid-19 on foreign employment and agriculture says 1.5 million jobs need to be created this fiscal. In the 2020-21 budget, the government had pledged 700,000 new jobs, less than half the number needed. But economists say some areas still hold promise. 

Since the lockdown, ruling politicians as well as economists have agreed that agriculture is most suited to employ a large number. Partially as a result of young people seeking foreign employment over the past two decades, villages were empty and fertile lands were barren. Thus, returning migrant workers, particularly the youth, could be employed in farming.

Minister for Agriculture, Ghanashyam Bhushal, is hopeful of creating 150,000 new jobs in agriculture this fiscal. Speaking at an interaction a few days ago, Bhushal said jobs could be created by promoting farming in barren lands, riverbeds, and in designated plots. 

The government has also launched the Prime Minister Employment Program. But critics say the youths are just not attracted to the program, which is to provide a minimum of 100 days of employment to unemployed youths. 

Likewise, with the members of the marginalized community as its target, the government has come up with a program called Work for Food in the 2020-2021 budget. The goal here is to employ in various social works those who have returned from abroad or have lost their jobs. Similarly, the government has allocated budget for vocational training of unemployed youths, which, it claims, will create five million jobs in this fiscal. Subsidiary loans have also been pledged for starting new businesses. But economists reckon all these programs are inadequate to meet the enormous Covid-19-induced unemployment challenge. 

Agriculture, again the answer

As senior economist Dr. Chandra Mani Adhikari puts it, with greater collaboration and cooperation between federal, provincial and local governments, plenty of jobs can be created in agriculture. “First, we should establish a multipurpose agriculture center in each province. This center will provide seeds, fertilizers, agriculture tools, training, anti-pesticides, cold storage, and other facilities that farmers need to sell their products,” suggests Adhikari.

According to Adhikari, farmers should then prioritize new types of fruits that are expensive and not easily available. “We are importing a lot of vegetables and masala from India and other countries, which we could otherwise have produced inside Nepal.” Another possible area of job creation could be services like plumbing, electrical work, and vehicle maintenance. Adhikari suggests organizing trainings for unemployed youths in these sectors. 

Social and political costs

The government’s failure to create enough jobs could have grave political and social ramifications. Tika Ram Gautam, head of the Central Department of Sociology at Tribhuwan University, says the impact of Covid-19 won’t be limited to livelihood issues, as it can also create problems within families and societies. “There could be sudden changes in existing social norms and values. Greater unemployment could lead to more violence, social unrest, and other law and order problems,” Gautam says.   

Rise of extremism is another possibility. In 1996, the Maoists had started their armed insurgency by recruiting a large number of unemployed youths from rural areas. Widespread unemployment today could similarly increase youth enthusiasm for extremism. For instance, the splinter Maoist group led by Netra Bikram Chand could more easily find recruits for its armed insurgency. One can only hope that the government works doubly hard from hereon to contain the Covid-19 crisis and create enough jobs for its growing workforce. The status quo is unsustainable.  

In countries practicing federalism, commissions related to natural resources and fiscal issues play pivotal roles in making the federal setup work equitably, through rational distribution of natural and financial resources. In some countries, there are separate advisory bodies to handle natural and fiscal resources. The 2015 constitution of Nepal established a single National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission (NNRFC). 

The commission’s role is crucial in transforming the old unitary state into a functional federal one. “Only effective implementation of fiscal federalism can sustain our political federalism,” says Jhapat Bahadur Bohara, Minister for Economic Affairs and Planning, Sudur Paschim province. “Yet, there seems to be no serious effort to get the fiscal side of federalism right.”

An effective commission could significantly reduce chances of disputes among the three tiers of government—federal, provincial and local. Most such disputes are over natural resources and revenue distribution. The commission is mandated to make recommendations on revenue distribution, equalization grants, conditional grants, internal borrowing, and sharing of natural resources among the three tiers. 

Currently, there are clear fiscal gaps at the provincial and local levels, as they are being asked to spend more than what they can collect in revenues. As such, the central government has to make fiscal transfers to the provincial and local levels to bridge the gaps. Although the local governments under the new constitution have been running for three years, the commission, mandated to facilitate their functions, is itself mired in problems. 

Late, incomplete, understaffed 

Soon after the enactment of the new constitution, the formation of a commission should have been the first priority of political parties. Yet, it wasn’t until two years later, in 2017, that the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission Act was finalized, with the commission coming into existence on the 28 December 2017. A year after the commission’s formation, the federal government, on 21 March 2019 appointed Balananda Poudel as its chairman. But four other members of the commission are yet to be appointed. “We have time and again urged the government to appoint remaining commission members at their earliest, for it is difficult to work without them,” says chairman Poudel. 

The long delay in the appointment of commissioners can largely be attributed to disputes within the ruling Nepal Communist Party, as well as between the NCP and the Nepali Congress, the main opposition. All their senior leaders want those close to them appointed as commissioners.  

Other personnel are also in short supply in the commission. According to Poudel, frequent staff turnover is not helping either. “On one hand, we have insufficient staff members, and on the other they are frequently being replaced”. Then there is the mismatch between the nature of the work, and knowledge and capacity of the staff. “Our staff are not trained to handle the specialized tasks the commission needs to handle,” Poudel adds. 

Legal troubles 

Then there are the legal hurdles. The constitution has given some exclusive powers to federal, provincial, and local governments, while, at the same time, there are some concurrent powers they share. But, there are no laws that clearly define exclusive and concurrent rights. Similarly, provinces and local governments can both collect house and land registration fees, motor vehicle tax, entertainment tax, and advertisement tax. Yet again, no existing laws clearly define what each is entitled to. 

Likewise, there are legal ambiguities in collecting fees and royalties through mobilization of natural resources. According to experts, several laws that were being applied, before the country adopted the federal structure, are still in place.  The laws related to natural resources, for instance, need to be amended to make it compatible with the new federal structure. Moreover, there are no mechanisms to ensure local governments are correctly using their resources, with the purpose of improving people’s lives and enhancing service delivery. The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and the Office of Auditor General are mandated to curtail abuse of authority and check corruption. But, once again, there are no clear accountability mechanisms to ensure local and provincial governments are not misusing their constitutional rights. 

Shadow of Finance Ministry

The NNRFC was envisioned as an autonomous constitutional commission, yet the federal government, and particularly the Ministry of Finance, continues to exert heavy influence over it. According to Section 20 of the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission Act, 2074: “The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Finance, shall liaison the commission with the Government of Nepal.” As the ministry is responsible for preparing the federal government’s annual budget, it is improper to make it a liaison for the commission, say fiscal federalism experts. 

Commission sources speak of the ministry’s undue influence and tussles on issues related to revenue distribution. Hinting at it, commission chair Poudel speaks of the need to “enhance understanding with the Ministry of Finance”. Experts say the commission should ideally be under the prime minister’s office. That way, it can better collaborate with other government ministries and departments. On the other hand, the commission, an autonomous constitutional body, is not answerable to any certain government ministry. 

Former National Planning Commission (NPC) vice-chairman Jagadish Chandra Pokharel says the fiscal commission chair could be more assertive in exercising the body’s constitutional rights. According to Pokharel, the domination of a single party from the federal to local levels is another reason behind the undue meddling with the commission’s work. 

Furthermore, the federal government doesn’t seem committed to implementing the commission’s recommendations on fiscal transfers to provincial and local governments. After the chair’s appointment, the commission had submitted its first report on the distribution of fiscal resources—a report that was completely ignored by the federal government. An official at the finance ministry says the problem was that the commission made recommendations without consulting the ministry. 

It is mandatory though for the government to abide by the commission’s recommendations. Article 60(3) of constitution says: “The amount of fiscal transfer receivable by the State and Local level shall be as recommended by the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission. Therefore, the government will have to implement the recommendations made by the commission.” 

Fiscal federalism expert Khim Lal Devkota avers that more than a constitutional obligation, it’s a matter of “our commitment to federalism.” Yes, he adds, the commission and the ministry can coordinate, but, at the end of the day, “the ministry is obliged to implement the commission’s recommendations.” 

Working without expertise 

The job of this commission is highly technical, and as such it requires specific expertise. Yet, instead of experts related to the field being appointed to fill the remaining vacancies in the commission, chances are that the vacancies will, eventually, be filled with political appointees. Meanwhile, in the absence of these specialists, civil servants are being forced to work as their substitutes. 

“We are generalists rather than experts,” says a commission staffer requesting anonymity. “Yet we have been functioning as experts for the past two years. It does not seem to have occurred to the government that we can only support the experts, not replace them.” 

Commission chair Poudel says he immediately needs a natural resources specialist as well as senior economists. Without such experts, he adds, the commission cannot conduct reliable research. 

Provincial reservations

As per its mandate, the commission has to work extensively with federal, provincial, and local governments. For this purpose, it needs both experts and expertise, both of which the commission lacks. The representatives of provincial governments blame the commission of failing to carry out its duty of persuading the federal government to delegate more power and resources to the provinces. 

“The financial resources we get are insufficient for effective service delivery. What has the commission done to improve things?” asks Kailash Prasad Dhungel, Minister for Economic Affairs and Planning of Bagmati province. According to him, there is also a need for an in-depth study on the problems faced by local governments. “Population and geography are being used as the only criteria for distribution of financial resources. This is wrong”. Provincial and local government representatives say resources should rather be allocated based on performance and necessity. 

Bohara, the Minister for Economic Affairs and Planning of Sudur Paschim province, also disagrees with the commission’s recommendation on the distribution of revenues to the provinces. He asks the commission to start using the Human Development Index—in addition to population and geography—as a gauge for resource allocation. 

Even though there has been some consultation between the commission and the provincial governments, such consultation with local governments is largely missing. Not that it is only the commission’s fault. Dozens of local governments have failed to bring timely budgets, nor are they submitting their expenditure reports. This has made it difficult for the commission to collect data from local governments, and, on top of that, other ministries are not cooperating. 

Learning by doing 

Nepal was still a unitary state when the commission was proposed. Now, three years since the country embraced federalism, the new setup has brought to the fore many unimagined issues. Pokharel suggests revisiting the commission’s function after the completion of an election cycle. “When the commission was formed we had just started on the federal road. Many new issues have cropped up, which in turn make it important to revisit the commission’s function on a timely basis.” 

According to experts, the recent past has also shown how local governments lack expertise to handle natural resources and revenue distribution related issues. Pokharel says local governments were never oriented with a federal setup in mind. 

One of the commission’s major responsibilities is to make recommendations on the equalization of grants to be provided to the provincial and local governments out of the federal consolidated fund. The commission has been more successful in this than in some of its other responsibilities. For instance, it has largely failed to carry out research on likely disputes between and within the three tiers of government, and to suggest ways to prevent them. With intensive and timely research, it would be easier to resolve possible disputes. “The commission has been able to carry out only some of its responsibilities mandated in the constitution,” says fiscal federalism expert Devkota. 

Unless the NNRFC starts functioning effectively, it won’t be possible to implement fiscal federalism in the true sense of the term. But the federal government, which has been charged with reluctance to delegate rights and resources to provincial and local governments, seems to be in no hurry to adequately empower the commission. 

Major functions of the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission: 

 • To make recommendations on equalization grants to be provided to the provincial and local governments out of the federal consolidated fund.

• To carry out research and define parameters for conditional grants to be provided to the provincial and local gov­ernments in accordance with national policies and programs, norms, standards, and the state of infrastructures. 

• To determine a detailed basis and modality for the distribution of revenue between the provincial and local govern­ments out of the state consoli­dated fund. 

• To recommend measures to meet expenditures of the federal, provincial and local govern­ments, and to reform revenue collection mechanisms.

• To analyze macro-economic indicators and recommend ceilings on internal loans that the federal, provincial and local governments can take out.

• To review the basis for revenue distribution between the feder­al and provincial governments and recommend revisions.

• To set bases for the determination of shares of the feder­al, provincial and local gov­ernments in investments and returns and in the mobilization of natural resources.

• To conduct research on possible disputes between the federation and the provinces, between provinces, between a province and a local level, and between local levels, and make suggestions on ways to prevent such disputes.

• To carry out environmental impact assessment required in the course of distribution of natural resources, and make recommendations to the government. 

(Source: The Constitution of Nepal, 2015) 

Mahanta Thakur was a top Nepali Congress (NC) leader before he formed his own Tarai-Madhes Loktrantrik Party in 2007, immediately after the first Madhesi Movement. Had he not left the NC, Thakur was the most likely candidate for the country’s president from the party. Instead, the nomination and the post went to Ram Baran Yadav, another Congress stalwart. Thakur is a firm believer in parliamentary democracy. 

In 1996 Baburam Bhattarai was already the second-in-command and the party’s chief ideologue when the Maoists launched their insurgency. But he severed ties with the mother Maoist party in 2015, following the promulgation of the new national charter, and formed his own party, Naya Shakti Nepal. The new party embraced socialist and progressive agendas. 

Upendra Yadav was a school teacher before becoming a revolutionary Maoist and the champion of the Madhesi cause. His burning in 2007 of the interim constitution led to his arrest, catapulting him into national politics. In the first Constituent Assembly election, his new party, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, emerged as the largest Madhes-based outfit. Yadav is most comfortable working with left parties. 

Rajendra Mahato, a seasoned Madhesi leader, was once associated with the Nepal Sadbhawana Party. This party was active in Madhesi politics after the 1990 changes, but has since merged with Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. Ideologically, he is close to ‘democratic’, as opposed to ‘progressive’, forces. 

Mahendra Raya Yadav comes from the CPN-UML, and joined various Madhes-based parties after the 2006 political changes. Likewise, Ashok Rai was UML vice-chair before he formed his own Sanghiya Samajbadi Party. In 2015, he merged his party with Upendra Yadav’s Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. But the senior Janajati leader has failed to get much support from Janajati groups. 

All these leaders from diverse backgrounds are now collectively under the umbrella of the new Janata Samajbadi Party-Nepal (JSPN). In the federal lower house, it is the third largest party after the Nepal Communist Party and the NC, and projects itself as an alternative political force. 

The new party also includes leaders such as Sarad Singh Bhandari (from NC), and Anil Kumar Jha and Raj Kishor Yadav (various Madhes-based parties). There are also some junior leaders in the JSPN who started their politics during the party-less Panchayat system. The new party is thus a curious mixture of ethnicities, ideologies, and classes. 

Merger star aligns 

What prompted them to come together? According to Madhes watchers, the unification had been in the cards for a while. It got the final push on April 20, when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli brought a new ordinance to make it easier to divide political parties; doing so with the express purpose of splitting Madhesi parties and strengthening his two-thirds lower house majority. 

Oli’s strategy was to split the big Madhes-based parties and use CK Raut—the leader of a secessionist movement in Madhes that Oli helped bring to national mainstream—to improve his position in Madhes. To forestall this, Samajbadi Party and Janata Party, with 17 and 16 seats in the federal lower house respectively, announced their merger on April 22. Otherwise a section of the Samajabadi Party was all set to join the Oli government after registering a separate party under new rules. 

The Madhesi forces faced an ‘existential crisis’. Mainly after the unification of the CPN-UML with the CPN (Maoist Center), the Madhesi outfits feared being permanently shut out of power. In the past, even fringe Madhesi parties had played kingmakers, making and breaking governments in Kathmandu. But with the consolidated communist party at the helm and changes in political party rules, that was no longer an option. 

According to new legal provisions, in a national election, a party has to cross the threshold of three percent overall valid votes under the Proportional Representation category and get at least one seat under the First-Past-the-Post category. Only then it is recognized as a national party. This explains why there were only four national parties after the 2017 elections, while eight national parties and over two-dozen others had emerged after the 2013 CA elections. The new provisions forced smaller parties to consolidate. 

The utter dominance of the NCP in national politics made these proponents of identity politics band together. With the local elections just two years away, they didn’t have much time to lose. 

Ideological muddle

Ideological differentiation is an important concern for political parties. What is the core ideology of the JSPN with its diverse cast of characters then? Party leaders say its ideology of ‘advanced democratic socialism’ sets the JSPN apart from other political outfits. 

“BP Koirala embraced democratic socialism, mainly focusing on economic equality and individual freedom. Our party professes ‘advanced democratic socialism’ by incorporating new issues such as the end of social, cultural and caste discriminations, and the consolidation of federal and republican orders,” says party leader Keshav Jha. He also states that the new party is in favor of inclusive and participatory democracy. 

But Madhes watchers reckon the new party’s ideology is still unclear. According to Rajesh Ahiraj, “The JSPN has leaders who served the NC, the CPN-UML, the Madhes-based parties as well as the Panchayat regime. Carving out a clear ideology is thus difficult for it”. But lack of clarity could also be to the party’s benefit, adds Ahiraj, as it could forestall a split along ideological lines. 

According to another analyst of Madhesi politics, Tula Narayan Shah, there are currently three major currents in national politics. Some parties focus on nationalism, some focus more on development, while still others focus on identity politics. “The new party’s major plank is identity-based politics,” Shah says.

Meanwhile, the JSPN’s Raj Kishore Yadav says that with the formation of a strong alternative force, Kathmandu will be under greater pressure to heed the Madhesi voices, including the crucial issue of the constitution amendment. “The NCP and NC are traditional forces. We are a new, alternative political force that stands for inclusive and participatory democracy,” says Yadav.  

Organizational headaches

Management of party leaders from center to grassroots is also problematic. Plus, the old personality clashes in Madhes-based parties could resurface. 

“Our primary focus now is settlement of internal organizational issues. We have to amalgamate the various organizations affiliated with separate parties pre-unification,” says Raj Kishor Yadav. 

When six Madhes-based parties united in 2017 to form the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal, there was a huge problem with managing all the new leaders. So the party adopted the presidium system, where six leaders served as presidents on a rotational basis. “In order to adjust all top leaders who now fall under the JSPN rubric, we will continue to follow the principle of collective leadership,” says Yadav.  

During the JSPN’s registration, Mahantha Thakur and Upendra Yadav were named party chairs, while Baburam Bhattarai, Ashok Rai and Rajendra Mahato were declared senior leaders. “In a top-heavy party like the JSPN, there are bound to be personality clashes. In fact, that would be JSPN’s biggest challenge going ahead,” says writer Pranab Kharel, a sociologist and a close follower of Madhesi politics. 

Another vital issue is the constituency of the new party. A combination of two largely Madhes-based parties, the JSPN’s base will continue to be Madhes. As it is, the new outfit commands over 50 percent local governments in Tarai-Madhes. But the party also incorporates many powerful leaders from the hills. 

The JSPN is projecting itself as a national party. But analysts say while there is a chance of it holding on to its Madhes base, it will have a tough time expanding in hill areas and in Kathmandu.  

“It will struggle to attract the hill’s Janajati constituency. Nor will the Khas-Arya folks support it easily,” says political analyst Shah. He fears that in due course hill leaders like Baburam Bhattarai and Ashok Rai could come to dominate the JSPN. In that case, the party could face an identity crisis. 

Yet the party has started consolidating the Janajati constituency and plans on a big alliance of identity-based political forces. According to leaders from the two merging parties, the next national movement will be launched under the banner of ‘Rastriya Mukti Andolan’, with the goal of accommodating Janajati and other forces that feel betrayed by the 2015 constitution. 

Can’t go national 

Analyst Ahiraj suggests the party will struggle even in Madhes. “The new party cannot win support in Madhes as it is no longer a Madhes-based party, nor does it carry Madhesi ideology,” he says. According to Ahiraj, the NC, whose traditional vote bank is Madhes, could gain from the ideological muddle in the JSPN.  

Political analyst and Madhesi intellectual Chandra Kishore echoes Ahiraj. He says there is a feeling among grassroots level Madhesi cadres that Madhesi leaders are gradually abandoning their base in the name of forming a national party. There are other problems too. “During its formation, the party has not been inclusive. There is no representation of Madhesi Dalits, and the Tharu community has been ignored,” says Kishore. 

Analyst Shah, however, believes the party will do well in Madhes even though he is not so sure about its prospects in the hills and in Kathmandu. Baburam Bhattarai, Ashok Rai and Rajendra Shrestha who represent the JSPN’s non-Madhesi faces all struggled in the 2017 national elections. For instance, Bhattarai won the election from Gorkha only because of his alliance with the Nepali Congress. The other two lost, as they struggled to get the Janajati support.

The Madhesi leaders will also struggle to increase their appeal in hilly and mountain regions as well as in Kathmandu Valley. According to experts, the 2007 Madhes movement created a gulf between Madhesi and Pahadi communities in Madhes—a gulf which is yet to be breached. According to Shah, Madhesi population more easily accepts Pahadi leaders rather than the other way around. For instance, Baburam Bhattarai and Ashok Rai are somehow accepted in Madhes but other Madhesi leaders are not as easily accepted in the hills. 

According to Shah, problems will crop up even within the party. “In intra-party elections, leaders and cadres from hill constituencies are unlikely to vote for Madhesi leaders,” he says. Sociologist Kharel adds, “Their tactical alliance to establish identity-based politics notwithstanding, there has never been cordial relations between Madhesi and Janajati constituencies.” 

Brief History of Madhes-based parties 

Bedananda Jha established the first Madhes-based party, the Tarai Congress, in 1951 after breaking away from the Nepali Congress. Nepal Sadbhawana Party, formed in 1985, represented Madhes in the post-1990 dispensation. Between 1990 and 2006, the NSP itself would repeatedly split and coalesce into new parties. But it was only in the aftermath of the 2006 political changes that the Madhesi parties started playing a decisive role in national politics. 

A group of Madhesi activists led by Upendra Yadav launched the first Madhesi movement following the promulgation of the interim constitution in 2007, after federalism had found no place in the interim charter. Yadav emerged as the undisputed Madhesi leader and registered the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Nepal (MJF). 

Later, Nepali Congress leader Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar and Sarad Singh Bhandari joined the Upendra-Yadav led MJF just before the first Constituent Assembly elections in 2008. At the same time, senior NC leader Mahanta Thakur, Sadbhawana leader Hridayesh Tripathi, UML’s Mahendra Raya Yadav, and Ram Chandra Raya of Rastriya Prajatantra Party formed Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party.  

Gachhadar split from the MJF to join the Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government. After some time, Sarad Singh Bhandari and JP Gupta also formed separate parties. 

Just before the 2017 national elections, six Madhes-based parties announced their unification, all merging into the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. Similarly, the Upendra Yadav-led party united with Ashok Rai-led Sanghiya Samajbadi to form Sanghiya Samajbadi Forum Nepal. Later there was unification between Samajbadi and Naya Shakti Nepal under Baburam Bhattarai. Now, the Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal has been formed after the merger of the Samajbadi Party and the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. 

The head of a communist government claiming a religious figure from ancient mythology for his country was, admittedly, a touch strange. Yet Prime Minister KP Oli seemed to know what he was doing. Unlike in India, religion is proving to be a poor tool for political mobilization in Nepal. Yet when you dare claim the chief deity of the ruling party in India, the traditional hegemon, people at home are bound to notice. Is it possible that Lord Ram was born in Nepal, many of them questioned? As the historicity of Ram’s birth or his birthplace cannot be established, what is the harm in believing that Ram was a fellow Nepali from Thori near Birgunj?  

When the prime minister’s remark had the predictable effect, at least in India, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set out to control the damage. Oli understands a complete rupture with India is also not in his interest. “The remarks made by the Prime Minister are not linked to any political subject and have no intention at all to hurt the feeling and sentiment of anyone,” read the MoFA statement. “As there have been several myths and references about Shri Ram and the places associated with him, the Prime Minister was simply highlighting the importance of further studies and research of the vast cultural geography the Ramayana represents...”

PM Oli’s Bhanu Jayanti speech was miles from ‘highlighting the importance of further studies and research’. Nonetheless, all the political analysts APEX talked to agreed that the prime minister was not taking a stab at religious politics. Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam says the use of religion as a political tool can never be ruled out. Yet he reckons its salience as a political tool is decreasing in Nepal. “Rather than backing for a particular religion, PM Oli’s remark represents a continuation of Mahendra-era nationalism. By raising an issue that was sure to pinch India he was trying to cement his hold in his own party,” Gautam says. 

Senior journalist Dev Prakash Tripathi, who is leading a campaign called ‘Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali’ to restore the Hindu kingdom, says religion came to be politicized in Nepal mainly after the 2006 political changes. Yet the NC district-level leader in Dhading too disclaims the view that Oli’s motive was to drum up support from Nepali Hindus. He says existing political parties have lost people’s trust and they cannot be trusted to take up the sacred issue of Hinduism. 

It was the erstwhile Nepali monarchy that established Hinduism as a state religion. The monarchs wanted to propagate the myth of their holy Hindu lineage, with the reigning monarch projected as no less than an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and as such above the law. In republican Nepal, the country’s democratically elected rulers continue to use religion. The goal this time is to employ the fabled opium of the masses to puff up the rulers’ anti-India nationalist credentials. 

On July 13, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli made a controversial statement over the birthplace of Lord Ram. He accused India of creating an artificial Ayodhya in India, when Ram was actually born in Nepal, in Thori village west of Birgunj.

PM Oli’s statement invited fierce criticism in Nepal and India alike. Leaders of Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular were livid.  

After the opposition to PM Oli’s statement escalated in India, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs tried to tone things down. “The remarks made by the Prime Minister are not linked to any political subject and have no intention at all to hurt the feeling and sentiment of anyone,” read the statement. “As there have been several myths and references about Shri Ram and the places associated with him, the Prime Minister was simply highlighting the importance of further studies and research of the vast cultural geography the Ramayana represents...”

But the prime minister’s claim also resonated with sections of Nepalis who would like to believe a revered deity like Ram was born in their country. Thus, some speculated, Oli really did want to gain the sympathies of the country’s Hindu population.

In India, the Hindu nationalist BJP had come to power for a second term on a strong Hindu nationalist plank. Some espy the emergence of a similar movement in Nepal to challenge its current secular status, perhaps with the help of some senior BJP leaders who have lent their voice in support of a Hindu Nepal.

Currently, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) is the only notable political force in Nepal supporting the restoration of monarchy and Hindu state. But the party has of late struggled as an electoral force, and failed to win a single directly contested seat in the 2017 federal and provincial elections.

There are voices in Nepali Congress, the main opposition, in favor of a Hindu state. In the upcoming general convention scheduled next February, Hinduism could become a prominent agenda. The ruling Nepal Communist Party too professes secularism, yet many of their leaders also have a soft spot for Hinduism. This is perhaps understandable as a sizable chunk of their electorate are devout Hindus. But how big is this support?  

Politically irrelevant

Political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam says the use of religion as a political tool can never be ruled out. Yet he reckons its salience as a political tool is decreasing in Nepal. “Rather than backing for a particular religion, PM Oli’s remark represents a continuation of Mahendra-era nationalism. By raising this issue that was sure to pinch India he was trying to consolidate his hold in his own party,” Gautam avers.

Another political analyst Hari Roka also does not believe the PM’s statement on Ram was intended to please Nepali Hindus but rather “to cover up his failure on both domestic and foreign fronts”. Roka says religion-based politics has already failed in Nepal.

Senior journalist Dev Prakash Tripathi, who is leading a campaign called ‘Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali’ aimed at restoring the Hindu Kingdom, says the issue of religion was politicized in Nepal mainly after the 2006 political changes. Yet the NC district-level leader in Dhading too disclaims the view that Oli’s motive was to drum up support from Nepali Hindus.

“Secularism was not something people had asked for during the second Jana Andolan. Political parties inserted it in the new constitution at the behest of foreign forces,” Tripathi says. Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali, which has brought together NC leaders and cadres who are in favor of Hindu state, has now launched a signature campaign for the restoration of the Hindu state. He says existing political parties have lost people’s trust and as such cannot take up the issue of Hinduism.

According to him, if a new force takes up revival of Hindu state as a key agenda it will win great support. “I am confident that a new Hindu nationalist party will emerge in Nepal as a large chunk of the Hindu population is unhappy with the country’s secular status,” Tripathi says.

Self-appointed gods

It was the erstwhile Nepali monarchy that established Hinduism as a state religion. This was done as the monarchs wanted to propagate the myth of their holy Hindu lineage, with the reigning monarch being no less than an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and as such above the law.

The democratic constitution of Nepal adopted in 1959 was silent on religion. Then the 1962 panchayat-era charter declared Nepal a Hindu kingdom. When a new constitution was promulgated in 1990 after the people’s movement, the new charter retained Nepal’s Hindu status despite protests from minority groups that wanted a secular state.

Between 1960 and 2006, the monarchy actively promoted Hinduism with the backing of Hindu organizations like the World Hindu Federation Nepal. In fact, the organization is still on its mission to promote Hinduism and monarchy. Yet the growing consensus among Nepali intellectuals and the political class is that Hinduism can no more be used as the primary tool of political mobilization in Nepal. The people of Nepal have still less appetite for a return of monarchy. 

Having joined underground communist politics in 1969, Madhav Kumar Nepal, now 67, has occupied nearly every important political position he could have aspired for. Starting in 1993, he headed the CPN-UML as its general secretary, the party’s top post back then, for 15 consecutive years. He became the country’s prime minister in May 2009, a job he held for 21 months. Still healthy and politically active, Nepal’s political aspirations remain high.  

Since the unification between CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) in 2018, there has been a constant tussle between KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the two co-chairmen of the new Nepal Communist Party (NCP). The tussle is largely centered on the question of whether (and when) Oli should step down as prime minister and clear the way for Dahal. Alternately, Oli could have assuaged Dahal’s ego by making him the party’s sole chairman.

All this while, senior leader Nepal was himself engaged in hectic negotiations with both Oli and Dahal to carve out a greater role for himself in the party. Of late, Nepal had been allying with Dahal to fight against PM Oli’s ‘monopoly’.  

PM Oli in turn has now proposed to hold the ‘unity’ general convention this November in a bid to quell intra-party disputes. Before that, Nepal had clearly stated that he was ready to accept Dahal as prime minister in lieu of Oli.  What he does not want is for the two to once again arrive at a ‘secret agreement’ that leaves him out in the cold.

“Nepal is an obvious candidate for party chairman in the unity convention,” says Deepak Prakash Bhatta, an NCP leader who is close to Nepal. “Yet he is not a leader who is hungry for power. He rather wants the party to run according to certain norms and regulations.”

In the two and half years, Nepal has registered his note of dissident against several party decisions. His relation with PM Oli has been sour and there has been a breakdown of communication between the two. Nepal feels Oli reaches out to him only when Dahal tightens the screws on the prime minister to step down.

In August 2019, senior leader Nepal registered a seven-point note of dissent with the party, expressing his displeasure over work division of party leaders and order of precedence in party ranking. 

Broken order

Before the unification, say those close to him, Nepal’s position in the party was at par with Oli.  After it, Oli has systematically weakened his hold on party organizations. Before, 40 out of 75 UML district chiefs were from Nepal camp, which was his biggest strength. The votes secured by Oli and Nepal in the last general convention also suggest the two leaders had near equal strength in the party: Oli was elected from the convention with 1,047 votes, while his rival Nepal secured 1,003 votes.

When talks of unification with the Maoist party started, Nepal had expressed doubts about his position in the new party. Oli had apparently assured that Nepal would be elected party chairman in the next general convention. “Yes, there was a gentleman’s agreement to this effect,” says another leader close to Nepal requesting anonymity.

However, after the unification, “Oli started to take the side of Prachanda and launched a systematic campaign to weaken Nepal’s position in the party. While picking standing committee and central committee members, those from our sides were sidelined,” says the leader. Of the 174 NCP lawmakers now in the House of Representative, 78 are close to Oli, 53 to Dahal, and 43 to Nepal.  Similarly, in the 45-member standing committee, 18 are close to Dahal, 15 to Oli, and 12 to Nepal.

Nepal faction believes PM Oli is trying to drag him into the Baluwatar Lalita Niwas land-grab scam and using the scam as a bargaining tool. Over many years, various individuals had captured around 114 ropanis of public land at Lalita Niwas, during the tenures of successive post-2006 prime ministers.

Nepal’s current priority is to be elected chairman from the general convention, and reckons Dahal is his main rival, especially as Oli has announced he won’t be standing for chairman again. If Oli does opt out, Nepal wants to be the new chairman, with Dahal serving as the prime minister.

Checkered history

Since 1990, leader Nepal has been continuously holding vital state positions. He was a member of the Constitution Recommendation Committee formed in 1990 to draft a new constitution of Nepal. The Krishna Prasad Bhattarai government accepted the draft and promulgated the constitution. After that he was the main opposition leader of the lower house for nearly eight years. Similarly, he became the deputy prime minister in the 1993 Bharat Mohan Adhikari UML-led government.

After his 2001 royal coup, King Gyanendra had invited applications for the post of prime minister from political parties. Nepal was the only senior leader from the Big Two (Nepali Congress and CPN-UML) to apply, a taint Nepal has not been able to wash away to this day.

Nepal finally came to occupy the highest political office in the land in 2009 after the removal of Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government. Nepal was elevated to the post even though he had lost the 2008 CA elections.

Inside the party, Nepal is regarded as a pragmatic leader with high moral values. Notably, Nepal had resigned as the general secretary on moral grounds after the 2008 CA elections debacle. He later accepted the nomination as a CA member and took leadership of the Constitutional Committee that was responsible for the settlement of key disputed issues of the new constitution. If Nepal is seen as the kingmaker in the current dispute in the NCP, the senior leader has earned the position, say those close to him, adding that unlike Oli, Nepal does not want to see the NCP disintegrate at any cost.  

But Karna Bahadur Thapa, a close confidant of PM Oli, questions Nepal’s ‘clean image’ and moral integrity. “The main reason behind the current NCP deadlock is Madhav Kumar Nepal. He is preventing a possible deal between PM Oli and Dahal. He neither allows the government to function well nor is he helping complete the task of party unification,” Thapa says. Nepal, he adds, is ever ready to compromise on his ideals for political benefits.

CPN-UML had suffered a split in 1998 under Nepal’s leadership. “He was not flexible enough to accommodate Bam Dev Gautam [the leader of the breakaway faction],” says Thapa. To his critics, Nepal’s role in the 1998 party split, his petitioning to become prime minister in 2001, his agreement to be inducted into the CA despite losing the 2008 elections from two constituencies, and his current role in undermining the Oli government—all disprove that he is someone with a high moral character.

Most Indian TV news channels and many Indian newspapers have limited knowledge of Nepal. Earlier, they used to have resident reporters in Kathmandu, who made some effort to understand ground realities here. These days, most Indian media outlets don’t have such knowledgeable reporters in Kathmandu to bank upon. They rather rely on their New Delhi-based sources for second-hand (and often inaccurate) information on Nepal. This leads to inaccuracy in reporting. But even more than a lack of knowledge, it is their constant chase for eyeballs and salacious headlines that make them overstep journalistic norms. 

Nepal has been a victim of many such inappropriate and biased Indian reporting in recent times. During the 2015 earthquakes, the Indian news channels portrayed their country as a ‘savior’ of Nepalis, suggesting Nepal would have been helpless without its help. They also inflated the damages. This self-important attitude of the Indian media resulted in a ‘Go Back India’ campaign. The same condescending attitude was on display during the blockade later that year. Often, the Indian media appeared to be repeating the fodder the South Block provided them rather than trying to find the truth themselves. 

To be fair, the bulk of the Indian broadcast media is not very objective about events inside India too. They display a clear political bias. The channels that question the official line can be blacked out. Yet perhaps time has come for India to better regulate its private broadcast outlets—at least when it comes to their coverage of events outside India. In fact, the Press Council of India has spelled out that as media play an important role in molding public opinion and developing better understanding between countries, “objective reporting so as not to jeopardize friendly bilateral relations is therefore desirable.” 

‘Objective reporting’ is all that is needed. Indian journalists’ flouting of this government guideline has repercussions on India’s image in smaller countries in the region and on vital bilateral relations. Rightly or wrongly, people in countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan see these Indian channels as representatives of the Indian government. As these channels have mass appeal, whenever they broadcast something objectionable about one of the smaller countries, these countries fear that the entire region is being misinformed. And this high-handed attitude of the Indian media is seen as yet another evidence of ‘Indian hegemony’.  

Journalists have biases too. But why would Indian journalists misrepresent these countries that mostly have amicable relations with India? Nepal is not China (India’s main strategic rival) or Pakistan (its chief antagonist). So if Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is serious about his ‘Neighborhood First’ policy, why not ask these channels to be more careful in their reporting so as not to damage India’s image in the neighborhood? Isn’t that in India’s interest, too? Again, we are not asking these Indian channels to always give ‘positive spin’ to stories from here; only to balance things and make sure their reporting is accurate. If this small step can help improve India’s image in the neighborhood, why not?