Submit your Article

“Media plays an important role in moulding public opinion and developing better understanding between countries. Objective reporting so as not to jeopardise friendly bilateral relations is therefore desirable,” reads one of the norms of the Journalist Conduct issued by the Press Council of India in 2019.

Not just India, such code of conduct bars journalists from nearly all countries from reporting on matters harming friendly bilateral ties. The media are instead expected to play a positive role in the conduct and formulation of foreign policy. Recent news reports on Nepal by Indian TV channels, according to experts, is a serious breach of the journalist code of conduct, and the Press Council of India should thus take action. Such reports damage bilateral relations instead of contributing to better understanding between the two countries.

An Indian TV news channel had reported on how the Chinese envoy to Nepal was trying to ‘honey trap’ Oli, in what read like a fictional story. This invited outrage not only in Nepal but also India. The Press Council Nepal (PCN) has drawn the attention of its Indian counterpart on the report. The PCN is also closely monitoring the contents of Indian news channels on Nepal. “It would be easy for us to take up the matter with the Indian side if Nepal government filed a complaint with the PCN, which in turn could be forwarded to the Indian Press Council,” said PCN acting chairman Kishor Shrestha. In the past two decades, the number of television stations has mushroomed, posing a challenge to the norms of accuracy, journalistic ethics, and probity. Not only in Nepal, there has been huge criticism of Indian TV stations in India, too.

In the recent case involving the prime minister, discussions are underway in Nepal about what the government can do to counter such fabricated news stories. Nepal has dispatched a protest letter to the Indian government, objecting to the story, but it yet to get a response. Nepali Ambassador to Nepali New Delhi Nilambar Acharya reportedly spoke to the owner of Zee, the offending news station, and reports suggest the station has apologized. But that is insufficient, says the Nepali side.  

Ban no solution

Senior journalist Dhurba Hari Adhikari says Nepal can seek legal remedy on such fabricated reports, but the question is: should it? “Our embassy in New Delhi can consult legal experts and file a case against the news channel but it is better to resolve it diplomatically, as the legal battle will be long and costly,” he says. Adhikari says the role of Nepali mission in New Delhi is vital on such issues.

In immediate response, Nepali cable operators decided to ban (later removed) Hindi news channels. As a temporary measure, the ban can be justified, say media experts, but also impractical in the long run.

“Showing your dissatisfaction is a symbolic act. Yet a blanket broadcast ban on Indian television channels is not a long-term solution as their content is also easily available on the web,” says media expert Laxman Datt Pant, who heads Media Action Nepal.

According to Pant, there are three ways to tackle Indian media’s fabricated stories on Nepal. First, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could take the initiative to start dialogue with Indian authorities. Second, we could communicate with the Indian Press Council and the Broadcasting Authority, arguing the broadcast content violates ethical standards and the two countries’ media laws. And, third, Nepal’s media and Nepal-India relation experts could provide insights on how such fabricated stories hurt bilateral relations in general and the Indian establishment in particular.

In India, private television stations fall under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which is regulates the content on private satellite channels. For the purpose, the ministry has an Inter-Ministerial Committee headed by Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The Indian government cannot dictate the content of its television stations as the constitution of India grants them full freedom of speech and expression. But it can seek clarification and urge correction or removal of objectionable content. “Compared to print and other outlets, there is more government control on Indian broadcasting media. In 2016, the Indian government had banned the NDTV for 24 hours. So the Indian government can do something meaningful whenever a broadcast media breaches its norms,” says Media expert and educator Dr Kundan Aryal.

Two-way street

Aryal points to the need for extensive discussions among media persons and other sections of the society about the negative coverage of Indian TV channels. “The problem with Indian news channels is that most of them do not have correspondents here so their observation is weak. They rather depend on high-level sources in New Delhi who often misguide them,” Aryal says.

Nepal can also ask organizations such as the International Federation of Journalists to take up the issue with India. Speaking with AP1HD television, senior journalist P. Kharel said Indian laws bar the media from any reporting that could hamper India’s relations with other countries. So Nepal also has the option of taking up the issue with India at the official level.

Despite objectionable coverage by some India media outlets, Prime Minister KP Oli’s baseless remarks on Nepal-India relations, according to experts, will weaken Nepal’s claim that Indian media are carrying inaccurate stories on Nepal. On July 13, he claimed without any evidence that the birthplace of Lord Ram is in Nepal and not India. Expressing his dissatisfaction over the PM’s remark, Aryal, who once served as PM Oli’s press advisor, said such statements could weaken the country’s position on Indian media coverage of Nepal.

“What sort of a statement was it, anyway? Was PM Oli trying to compete for attention against Indian TV channels?” Aryal questions.

Even as the Covid-19 crisis rages on, badly hindering party activities, Nepali Congress, the main opposition, has expedited the process of holding its 14^th General Convention on 19-22 February 2021 in Kathmandu. The party’s top decision-making body is to elect new leadership from center to grassroots.

To prepare, the party is holding its Central Working Committee (CWC) meeting. In fact, preparations for the convention had started back in February but had to be put off following the Covid outbreak in the country. Though the dates for lower-level party conventions have changed, the previously set date for the general convention remains intact. Yet it will be tough to hold the general convention on time.

First, the Nepali Congress is yet to complete the integration process of its grassroots-level cadres in line with the federal structures. In the federal restructuring, many village development committees have been reduced to wards and new electoral constituencies for provincial houses have been created. Adjustment of local leaders and cadres to this change has been difficult. Factional feuds have posed additional hurdle, as the party has to accommodate all factions.

According to NC Spokesperson Bishwa Prakash Sharma, adjustment of cadres remains incomplete in over two dozens districts. The party has instructed those district committees to complete the task within the next week. Originally, all these activities were to be completed by the third week of April.  

Renewal and updating of active membership is another uphill task that needs to be completed soon for the general convention to happen. Yet the party is yet to even send membership forms to all districts.

According to the new calendar, renewal and distribution of new active membership will be completed by December 15. This will be followed by village/town/ward level convention on December 21. The convention of 753 local governments happens on December 23, provincial-level electoral constituency convention on December 26, and district-level convention from December 28-31. After this comes provincial level convention on January 19, and last is the general convention on February 19-22. The party is undecided on how such a large number of cadres will gather in the middle of a raging pandemic.

Although NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba was hesitant, the party was compelled to come up with a fixed calendar due to relentless pressure from senior leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Krishna Prasad Situala. These leaders had been boycotting CWC meetings accusing the party president of delaying the general convention. Ever since the Congress was drubbed in 2017 parliamentary elections, Deuba has been under pressure to hold the convention as soon as possible so that party leadership can be handed over to someone else.

Besides Covid, constant floods and landsides will make party activities difficult in July and August. Similarly, in the winter that follows, mountainous districts will be covered in snow. Says a top NC leader requesting anonymity: “Party President Deuba agreed to hold general convention on time to deflect criticism that he is using the corona crisis as an excuse to extend his tenure.”

NC youth leader Madhu Acharya, who is thought of as close to senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel, says the party’s calendar is unscientific and it will be difficult to hold the general convention next February. “Due to floods and landslides, there can be no party-related activity in the next couple of months, and soon after that, there is Dashain and Tihar. Practically, it will be impossible to strictly adhere to the calendar,” Acharya says.

Yet the announcement of general convention dates signals that the process of electing new NC leadership has started, which is a vital message in the eyes of the party functionaries opposed to Deuba’s leadership. Party statute allows the CWC to extend its tenure by six months in case of an ‘abnormal situation’ in the country—and on current form the party is likely to take that option.

Incumbent President Deuba, 73, is looking to hang on, even after the 2017 electoral drubbing. Other party leaders wanted him to take responsibility and resign; but Deuba has refused to be scapegoated. At the upcoming general convention, his main challenge for party presidency could come from Dr Shekhar Koirala, who has been widely canvassing the country to drum up support. He believes he is the right scion of the Koirala family.  

Ram Chandra Poudel, 75, feels other senior leaders have long cheated him out of presidency, and even of the prime minister’s chair. He reckons it’s now or never. Prakash Man Singh, another senior leader from the Poudel camp, also wants to fight for presidency. But if Poudel enters the ring, Singh is likely to settle for vice-president.

When democracy was restored to Nepal in 1990, the country was unprepared. The state had been thoroughly centralized under the Panchayat system, with everyone ultimately answerable to the monarch. Between the people and the place, there were only a handful of intermediary institutions, which too came under direct control of the monarchy. Political parties were banned, and so were independent courts and constitutional bodies. Thus post-1990 governments had to operate in a kind of vacuum. Without functioning democratic institutions to hold them to account, the political leaders who suddenly found themselves in power were free to do pretty much as they pleased. 

Lack of democratic culture became immediately clear as political parties started a mad scramble for power. Politicians were reluctant to sit in the opposition and miss out on the gravy train. Hence no sooner would a government be formed, the opposition was already plotting its downfall. Nor were big parties like Nepali Congress and CPN-UML united, and competing political leaders often conspired to bring down their own governments. One reason for this perpetual state of instability was the flawed legislation that allowed quick making and breaking of governments. This changed in 2015 with the drafting of a new constitution. 

But even though the legislation changed, the mindset of the class of politicians that has continuously ruled the country for the past 30 years didn’t. So despite the ruling Nepal Communist Party now having nearly two-thirds parliamentary majority, its government once again appears wobbly even as more than half its five-year mandate remains. “Democracy demands responsible, broad-minded and consultative political leadership,” says political analyst Krishna Pokhrel. “Yet we have hardly had leaders with these characters since the 1990 political change.”

One reason for this close-mindedness is the tendency of our top political leaderships to limit their horizons to a small coterie of leaders and advisors. They simply don’t trust others. Another political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta avers that the current regime, like the earlier ones, is heavily occupied by power politics and not with people’s urgent agendas. Bhatta argues that ‘elite settlement’ of various democratic movements and convergence between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ classes to amass power, prestige and money create disillusionment among the masses and thus sow the seeds of instability. 

Then there is India, which became enmeshed in making and breaking many governments in Kathmandu. India wanted to maintain its stranglehold on Nepali polity and keep other foreign actors out. But in analyst Pokhrel’s words, “India’s interference persists, and yet the primary drivers of instability remains domestic—and it was no different in the past.” 

Sadly, the country’s current political leadership has done little to strengthen other democratic institutions or to make people believe it is working in their interest. It also seems minded to rely on external actors to protect its reign. 

Khokana, a small ancient village on the southern outskirts of Kathmandu Valley, is famous for its rich Newari culture and festivals. Newars have lived here for centuries. The place is also popular for its high quality ‘tori tel’ [mustard oil].

But the village has been in national headlines for a different reason in the past few years. The government wants to build the much-hyped Kathmandu-Nijgadh expressway through this village. The locals have rejected the plan, objecting that massive construction works will devastate the village and destroy its rich Newari heritage. They have been asking the government to change its decision, to no avail.

On July 3, police clashed with locals when the latter tried to plant paddy in their lands that the government has acquired for building the highway. The locals have rejected compensation against the acquisition.

Apart from the expressway, other projects are also planned through this village. Locals fear that the construction of the proposed outer ring road of Kathmandu Valley, a 132-KV transmission line, Bagmati corridor, and Kathmandu-Hetauda tunnel-way will ruin their abode and decimate agricultural productivity. On July 4, over 2,000 people gathered to protest government plans.

Locals say they are ready to give land for the projects in a way that doesn’t harm their cultural heritage. “We have proposed to give land outside Khokana for this purpose, but the government does not even want to discuss this option. It is trying to appropriate huge areas near the village,” says Krishna Bhakta Dangol, chair of a local committee mandated to talk to the government on this issue. “We want to protect our culture as well as our agricultural lands.”

Inviting trouble

Development planners and experts say Khokana highlights the folly in our national planning. In other places too the government has invited trouble by bypassing local people while designing projects. As they are key stakeholders in any project, addressing their concerns is vital. Former vice-chair of National Planning Commission (NPC) Jagadish Chandra Pokhrel says such issues should have been resolved during project finalization. “Khokana shows how we always make mistakes while designing projects and rue them later. It is a historic village with rich culture. When we do projects in such places, there should be broad debates and discussions,” Pokhrel says.

Pokhrel reckons that as the expressway is a big highway, it is better not to take the road through the village or keep zero-point there. “If there is no alternative, then the case would be different. But there are alternatives for the starting point of this highway,” he says. According to him, the use of force and suppression of people’s sentiments won’t do the project any good. A democratic way of running development projects is to hear the concerns of local people, he adds.

Government authorities, however, say that as project designing and compensations have already started, it would now be costly to change the design and choose a different starting point.

Environmentalist Prabhu Budathoki says the problem lies in our traditional top-down development model. The dispute in Khokana shows that development planners focus only on technical aspects while neglecting social, cultural and environmental issues, he says. For a culturally rich country like Nepal, these issues should be of paramount importance, he adds. “Both sides should sit for talks and find a solution to minimize damages. We cannot recreate Khokana village and its culture. We can only preserve them,” he says.

A logical option would be to address the concerns of the local people and divert the road a bit, even if it’s a little costly, advises Budathoki. That would be better than unnecessarily delaying the project owing to local protests, “which will be costlier than the diversion.”  

In the worst case, projects even get canceled in such cases. In the past, Melamchi drinking water project and Arun-3 hydropower have been significantly delayed for similar reasons.

But it’s not always the government’s fault. Political players and vested groups also create unnecessary problems at the local level, experts point out. For instance, local representatives of opposition political parties often try to instigate protests against the government. There is also this natural tendency among people to doubt distant government representatives.

“Local people tend to doubt government officials and their work, creating problems,” says former NPC vice-chair Pokhrel. In the case of Khokana, locals are also unhappy with the compensation for their land.

Khokana residents have already submitted an application at the National Human Rights Commission demanding protection of their cultural and human rights. The expressway project was initiated two decades ago but it was soon stalled, for various reasons. The government later gave the work to the Nepal Army. The planned 76-km road, which will be the shortest linking Kathmandu and the Tarai, is estimated to take four years to complete at the cost of Rs 110 billion.

In 1991, following the restoration of democracy in 1990, the Nepali Congress (NC) formed a single-party majority government with a five-year mandate. But largely owing to intra-party rifts, the government led by Girija Prasad Koirala collapsed just two years after its formation, starting a phase of chronic instability that still characterizes the country.

Frequent government changes, never-ending horse-trading for power, and corruption have since become key features of national politics. Again, in 1999, the Nepali Congress secured a majority in parliamentary elections and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai became the prime minister. But he was forced out in under a year, largely due to machinations of Koirala. This ultimately culminated in King Gyanendra’s takeover of executive powers in 2005.

In the first Constituent Assembly (CA) elections in 2008, the mother Maoist Party that had waged the decade-long insurgency emerged as the largest party, with near majority seats in the CA. But the subsequent government of Pushpa Kamal Dahal collapsed after only nine months in office. He had to resign over his sacking of the army chief Rookmangud Katawal, allegedly at the instigation of Baburam Bhattarai who wanted to cut Dahal down to size.

Intra-party rifts have been common in different political parties. And most Nepali prime ministers of the past three decades have paid for their failure to manage the relation between their party and the government. “Democracy demands a responsible, broadminded and consultative political leadership,” says political analyst Krishna Pokhrel. “Yet we have hardly had any leaders with these characters since the 1990 political change.” He attributes Nepal's political instability to the tendency of leaders to confine themselves to small coteries instead of trying to take the whole party into confidence.

Different but same

The formation of KP Sharma Oli's two-thirds majority government in 2018, it was hoped, would finally herald an era of stability. Yet in the two and a half years since, there have been constant talks about rifts in the ruling Nepal Communist Party and egregious lack of coordination between the party and the government it led. “The party gave a free-hand to PM Oli. But Oli failed to maintain a cordial relation with the party,” says Pokhrel. The kind of close consultation and coordination that is needed between the party and the government on policy-related issues was missing. 

Another political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta also speaks of his disappointment with the two-thirds majority government. “The much talked about stability is once again falling apart due mainly to internal wrangling in the NCP,” he says. The current regime, like the earlier ones, is also heavily occupied by power politics, he avers, at the expense of people’s agendas.

Bhatta argues that ‘elite settlement’ of various democratic movements and convergence between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ classes to amass power, prestige, and money has also contributed to political instability in Nepal.

In the post-1990 phase, the number of political parties mushroomed. In several cases, fringe parties with only a handful of seats in the parliament were able to act as kingmakers. There were other loopholes in the parliamentary system as well. The earlier constitution gave the prime minister full authority to dissolve the House and call for fresh elections. That is why one after another prime minister opted for mid-term elections whenever they faced a crisis of confidence in their own party. In the new constitution adopted in 2015, many such loopholes were closed. Under new provisions, the prime minister cannot call for mid-term elections so long as there is a possibility of government formation from the House floor. Similarly, a no-confidence motion against the prime minister cannot be introduced before two years of government formation. The split of political parties has been made difficult too.

Enemies without

Then there are the external factors. Though India often says stability in Nepal is in its interest, it has often belied its stated commitment. In the past, India was instrumental in making and breaking governments by playing with the contradictions within Nepal. In analyst Pokhrel’s words, “India’s interference remains, and yet the primary drivers of instability are domestic. It was no different in the past.”

Bhatta has similar views on external factors. He cites two primary reasons for their outsized importance in Nepal: the country’s sensitive geographical location and its poor economic condition. “Our leaders have been co-opted by outside powers and today we see the majority of the political class is pro-India, pro-China, pro-West but not necessarily pro-Nepal,” he adds. The role of external meddling is so ingrained in Nepali minds that there is a tendency to see outside hands in just about every political development.

Shyam Shrestha, an analyst of left politics, meanwhile, blames the tendency in communist parties of portraying rival factions as enemies.  “If you see the politics of the last three decades, there has been a tendency of betrayal and non-cooperation in our communist parties. Similarly, leaders don’t seem committed to honoring their agreements. For instance, the first Oli government collapsed in 2016 because of his reluctance to implement the deal with Prachanda. Conditions now are pretty much the same.”

All three political analysts APEX talked to concurred that political stability would continue to remain elusive so long as Nepali political parties failed to strengthen internal democracy.

Carefully balancing the influence of its two giant neighbors has been Nepal’s guiding foreign policy principle since the reign of Prithvi Narayan Shah. This has never been easy. The British India government or the Qing emperors, each wanted the small landlocked state to serve only its interests. This expectation remains more or less intact. As India-China ties take a nosedive, Nepal could once again find itself in the unenviable position of being asked to choose between its two equally indispensable neighbors.

This is not idle speculation. There have been similar expectations in the past. Officially, “Nepal is confident that both the neighboring countries will resolve, in the spirit of good neighborliness, their mutual differences through peaceful means in favor of bilateral, regional and world peace and stability.”

But that is not how folks in New Delhi or Beijing see it. “Nepal has to take a clear position on whether to stay neutral or take a side,” says Nihar R Nayak, a Delhi-based expert on Nepal-India ties. He says that as per the 1950 treaty, India could inform Nepal about its tensions with China and may seek its support.

Lin Minwang, Professor at Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, and deputy director of the university’s Institute of South Asia Studies, says “India’s violation of the territorial sovereignty of China and Nepal has given China and Nepal a common strategic interest on this issue.” Therefore, China and Nepal should support each other in this process, whether this support is “direct or indirect, public or private.”

Nepali geopolitical analyst Tika Dhakal differs. “Nepal has historically taken a neutral, non-aligned position between the two neighbors. One aspect of Nepal’s unique positioning in the South Asian region is its role as a buffer between India and China,” he says. “Continuation of this policy is important to ensure perpetual peace in Nepal as well as in the region.” Nonetheless, Dhakal too does not rule out added pressure on Nepal to take sides.

Another issue dividing public opinion in Nepal is the MCC compact, the American grant program. The compact is in limbo after the latest parliamentary session that ended June 2 failed to endorse it. China is against Nepal’s endorsement of the compact, as it sees it as a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy that aims to contain its rise. As India-China tensions worsen, India may pursue its interests in Nepal in concert with the US, further complicating things for Kathmandu.

The Oli government has only itself to blame for its current pro-China image, at least outside the country. There was no need for Nepal to hail China’s aggression in Hong Kong, or for the ruling party leaders to take part in a ‘training session’ with the CCP leaders—not when India and China were on the brink of war. History suggests Nepal cannot afford to so heavily rely on one of its neighbors, almost to the exclusion of the other. If unnatural proximity to India is dangerous, so is the NCP’s current love affair with China. Astute heads will be needed to pull Nepal out of the geostrategic quagmire it finds itself in.

Kathmandu: Nepal is watching mounting tensions between India and China in the Himalayas with great concern as it struggles to balance its relationship with its two giant neighbors. Reportedly, both India and China are amassing troops and weapons along the Galwan Valley in Ladakh—and preparing for the worst. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already given his armed forces a free hand to “take necessary steps to protect Indian territory.”

Nepal is also keenly watching growing tensions between China and the US. Over the past few years, Nepal had been witnessing heightened US-China rivalry, largely owing to developments around the American Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and China’s Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI).

In a June 20 statement on Ladakh, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged both sides to resolve the dispute through dialogue: “… In the context of recent developments in the Galwan valley area between our friendly neighbors India and China, Nepal is confident that both the neighboring countries will resolve, in the spirit of good neighborliness, their mutual differences through peaceful means in favor of bilateral, regional and world peace and stability.”

In an earlier India-China faceoff in 2017, this time in Doklam valley on the Bhutan-China border, Nepal had also maintained its neutrality and urged the two countries to resolve differences through dialogue. At the time, although India did not publicly say so, many Indian intellectuals had asked Nepal to support India on the basis of the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty. Similarly, during the 1962 India-China war, Nepal was able to maintain its strict neutrality by resisting competing pressures.

But if India-China tensions continue to grow, Nepal could once again be asked to take sides. “Nepal has to take a clear position on whether to stay neutral or take a side,” says Nihar R Nayak, a Delhi-based expert on Nepal-India ties. “On this issue the ruling Nepal Communist Party will be divided. So will the opposition parties.” He says that as per the 1950 treaty, India could inform Nepal about its tensions with China and may seek its support.

Nepali geopolitical analyst Tika Dhakal differs. “Nepal has historically taken a neutral, non-aligned position between the two neighbors. One aspect of Nepal’s unique positioning in the South Asian region is its role as a buffer between India and China,” he says. “Continuation of this policy is important to ensure perpetual peace in Nepal as well as in the region.” Nonetheless, Dhakal too does not rule out added pressure on Nepal to take sides.

As with India, so with China

Just like India, China is also likely to seek Nepal’s support if tensions rise. In an email interview, Lin Minwang, Professor at the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, and deputy director of the university’s Institute of South Asia Studies, says “India’s violation of the territorial sovereignty of China and Nepal has given China and Nepal a common strategic interest on this issue.” Therefore, China and Nepal should support each other in this process, whether this support is “direct or indirect, public or private.”

If China and India go to war, the issue of Nepali nationals working in the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army will again come to the fore. In that case, says Nayak, political parties and people from various walks of life could protest the deployment of Nepali nationals against China: The prospect of your fellow citizens coming back in body bags while fighting for another country is rather unsettling. 

The employment of Nepalis in the Indian Army “will affect Nepal’s interests if there is a conflict between China and India,” says Professor Lin. “China and Nepal should consider this issue that could adversely impact China-Nepal relations.”

Separately, experts say growing India-China tensions could push India closer to the United States and the European Union. In this scenario, India and the US may choose to work together to curtail growing Chinese influence in the region. Both India and the US oppose China’s BRI in Nepal. If India’s rivalry with China continues to grow, there is also a likelihood of an informal alliance among the four Quad members—India, Australia, America, and Japan—under the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

“The Quad has always been a part of the ‘Great Game’ imagination in the Pacific Ocean. On paper, such an alliance appears grand. But history informs us that attempts to isolate a particular country seldom yield peace. Isolating a powerful rising power like China can have even more dangerous consequences,” Dhakal says.

Domestic ructions

Amid such a fragile international climate, the future of the KP Sharma Oli government is in doubt after five of the nine NCP Secretariat members asked for his resignation, both as the head of the government as well as the party chairman. PM Oli is also in a pickle over the MCC compact, which he backs but is opposed by the majority Secretariat members. If Oli is removed at this juncture, the compact’s future will be in limbo.

Professor Lin says that China expects the NCP unity to remain intact, especially at a time “external forces are trying to influence unity within Nepal.”

For his part, Dhakal expects the new geopolitical competition in Nepal to be first evident in the form of growing competition between the BRI and the MCC, and the SAARC and the BIMSTEC, for instance. In the medium term, “this may reflect in the development aid that will come with more strings attached, and in sharp division among big powers even in our domestic issues.”

Additionally, escalating India-China border tensions could have a wider socio-economic impact on Nepal in the form of “blocked trade routes and scarcity of supplies.”

Third-generation Nepali Congress (NC) leaders often complain the party leadership disregards them on key issues.

First-generation leaders like BP Koirala, Ganeshman Singh, and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai founded the party back in 1950. Then, following the 1990 political changes, second-generation leaders like Sher Bahadur Deuba, Ram Chandra Poudel, and Bimalendra Nidhi came to the fore. Now, a new generation of leaders in the form of Gagan Thapa, Biswoprakash Sharma, and Pradeep Poudel are on the verge of taking up leadership positions.

These third-generation ‘youth’ leaders complain about their poor representation in policy-making, as the much older second-generation leaders continue to largely control the party. This has created a gulf between the country’s youth population and the Nepali Congress. 

Among the party’s eight office-bearers, no one belongs to the youth generation. The office-bearer body is the party’s powerful core, mandated to make quick decisions on vital national and party issues. 

Of late, there have been signs of change. Many youth leaders are coming out with strong voices on issues related to the party and national politics, and the party leadership is compelled to heed. Gagan Thapa’s impressive presence in the parliament is a case in point. People have started saying that Thapa is the sole threat to the government from the main opposition. Not only the parliament, Thapa’s influence in the party’s overall decision-making is also increasing. Besides Thapa, other youth leaders are emerging, too, but more as a result of their personal capacities rather than a system that promotes generational transfer of power.

Where’s the plan?

According to political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam, Congressi youth leaders have become more vocal and the party leadership has been forced to listen. But he reckons the youth leaders would help their own cause if they could come up with a clear vision on key national issues. “For example, what is the vision of NC youth leaders on Nepal-India relations in the changed context?” Gautam asks.  

He says the youth leaders need to have a clear ideological foundation for the party’s reformation. “Take the lack of ideological clarity in the party when it was forced to embrace federalism and republicanism,” he adds. Gautam himself was part of a Ganatrantrik Abhiyan (republican campaign), along with NC leaders Nara Hari Acharya, Gagan Thapa, Madhu Acharya, and political analyst Krishna Khanal. They filled the ideological vacuum and helped the party’s ideological shift from constitutional monarchy to republic. 

“The campaign also established many youth leaders in national politics. It shows that sustained youth campaign can bring meaningful changes in the party and the youths can find space within it,” Gautam says. 

Perhaps social media is making all the difference these days. Many youth leaders are active on social media, which allows them to gauge public opinion on national issues. They then press the party leadership to listen to the people. 

Recently, the party was obliged to go with public sentiment that favored changing the national map through the parliament. Some senior Congress leaders wanted to buy time, but youth leaders pressed them to immediately summon the Central Working Committee. There were some differences among the office-bearers, but they had to eventually yield to the youth pressure, and the CWC unanimously decided to vote in favor of endorsement of the new national map. 

Still, rues Pradeep Poudel, a noted youth leader, the party’s senior leaders listen to them only when the party is in opposition. “Perhaps the party leadership has started listening to us due to growing demand, both in and outside the party, that Congress needs to mend its ways,” he adds. “We are thus currently involved in party decision-making. But the real test of party leadership will come when Nepali Congress gets to power.” Despite some improvement, “the syndicate of old leaders continues to dominate decision-making,” Poudel concludes.  

Youth leaders have been vocal on the issue of corruption during the pandemic. They have proposed a nationwide campaign against corruption, but the party president is not interested. According to Dhan Raj Gurung, another prominent youth leader, the party submitted a memo to the government demanding a probe into the purchase of medical supplies, only after youth leaders pressed for it. “Corruption is one area where party leadership is listening to us. Still there are many pressing issues where they just ignore us,” Gurung says. 

Will happen, take time

The people, meanwhile, expect mainstream parties to actively fight corruption. Amid Covid-19 crisis, many apolitical young people came to the streets protesting the government’s poor handling of Covid-19 crisis. “We have to accept that the party’s involvement in such protests has weakened,” says Poudel. 

There are growing voices in the party that the leadership should be handed over to the next generation at the party’s general convention slated for April next year. Yet no third-generation leader is likely to be party president in the convention. The highest a young leader could go would be general secretary, the third in hierarchy after president and vice-president.  

There is a general consensus that there should be more and more third-generation leaders in party leadership if Congress is to effectively fight the consolidated communist juggernaut. But for the party to be actually led by a third-generation leader, perhaps the country will have to wait for some more time.