Submit your Article

Tensions between India and China continue to simmer in Ladakh of Jammu & Kashmir. Chances of escalation are high as the Indian media report a massive build-up of Chinese forces in the Galwan Valley. Apparently, the Chinese have also rebuilt the camp, just inside India’s borders, which the Indian forces had earlier destroyed. China, meanwhile, maintains it is India that needlessly provoked the Chinese contingent in Galwan. Troublingly, both sides continue to increase their troop presence in the area. 

Among those deployed on India’s behalf will be the Nepali nationals serving in its six Gurkha regiments. There are currently around 40,000 of them. There has been a lengthy debate in Nepal on whether the country should continue to send its able-bodied men to fight—and sometimes die—on behalf of another country. The problem is compounded for Nepal whenever India faces off against China, Nepal’s only other neighbor. Can India use the citizens of Nepal—which has traditionally had close and largely problem-free ties with the northern neighbor—to fight the Chinese?

Nepali foreign ministry officials say there has never been a formal protest from China over the deployment of Gurkha soldiers, who have repeatedly engaged in combat against the Chinese on India’s behalf since the early 1960s. With India-China tensions mounting again, the Gurkha soldiers of the Indian Army on leave in Nepal are being summoned back to duty. In this light, the splinter Maoist group led by Netra Bikram Chand, in a June 20 statement, ‘reminded’ India to desist from using Nepali soldiers against China.  

Despite such concerns, Nepal is in no position to ask India not to use the Gurkhas against China. “We have to accept the reality that they are part of the Indian defense system. We can do nothing about it,” says political analyst Krishna Khanal. Though it is an emotional issue for Nepalis, he argues the Indian defense force can deploy them as they wish. 

Nepal has never brought up the issue of revisiting Gurkha recruitment with India. But it sent a note to Britain in February this year, seeking a review of the tripartite agreement signed in 1947 between Nepal, India, and Britain that split the Gurkha regiments between India and Britain. In an initial reaction, Britain refused to change the agreement.

Till date, Nepalis continue to be recruited into the Indian Army. Lured by attractive salary, pensions, and other social security benefits, they join the Indian Army and take an oath to protect India’s national interests. According to Ashok Mehta, an old Nepal hand in New Delhi, Nepali youths in the Indian Army get four times the salary and pensions they would get in Nepal Army. 

The Covid-19 crisis has battered the Nepali economy and rendered hundreds of thousands jobless. This is surely not the right time for Nepal to ask its nationals in the Indian Army to come back or to stop recruitment into the force. But Nepal may find itself in a tricky spot if China asks it to reconsider.

On June 18, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali took part in a high-level video conference on the Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), chaired by Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Addressing the conference, Gyawali appreciated the role of the BRI in “high-quality development in the partner countries” and underscored the importance of the new initiative of “Health Silk Road under the BRI.”

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Health Silk Road hopes to facilitate trade in anti-epidemic medical supplies and cooperation in fighting infectious diseases, including sharing experiences and expertise. By organizing the conference, China wanted to convey a message that Covid-19 has not affected the BRI, but instead pushed the country toward new initiatives like the Health Silk Road.

Nepali politicians continue to express their full support for the BRI. Speaking at an interaction between the Nepal Communist Party and its Chinese counterpart, NCP co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal expressed his belief that “the BRI can bring in opportunities for common development... We can develop a community of shared destiny across the Himalayas by pursuing development path under the theme of trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network.”

But the BRI’s actual progress in Nepal has been sluggish. Though Nepal signed the BRI framework in 2017, it is yet to select specific projects under it and the Covid-19 crisis is likely to result in further delays. Before the corona outbreak, discussions were underway on specific projects and investment modalities. As talks had reached the level investment modality, discussing it over a video conference is not an option.

Chinese officials have said that the pandemic has affected over 20 percent BRI projects in Asia, Europe and beyond. According to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, another 30-40 percent of the projects have been somewhat affected. “As the situation improves we have confidence that the projects will come back and the execution of them will speed up,” said Wang Xiaolong, director-general of the ministry’s International Economic Affairs Department at a June 18 news briefing in Beijing.

Not just ongoing projects, the Covid-19 is likely to badly impact countries like Nepal that are yet to select specific BRI projects. The pandemic could mar the BRI projects in Nepal, whatever they are, for two reasons. First, due to its fragile economic condition, Nepal may not be in a position to take loans from China to finance the projects.

In this context, Nepal can ask China to give grants instead of loans. Given the growing competition among big powers and fast-changing geopolitics, China might just agree, even though China normally gives little in grants under the BRI. “In our current state of economic fragility, we should request China to provide grants on BRI projects. There are high chances that it could agree,” says Dr. Rupak Sapkota, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Foreign Affairs. According to him, China has given Nepal high priority during the pandemic and it will continue to do so in the future. “China is mindful that the economic condition of BRI recipient countries should remain vibrant and that the BRI should cause them no added pain,” he adds.

Second, China may itself not be in a position to give either loan or grants. But Sapkota differs. He says China’s economy has not suffered a lot from the pandemic, and it will as such continue to push the BRI projects in Nepal.

Initially, Nepal had selected 39 projects but following Chinese request it whittled the number down to nine. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, discussions were underway on project prioritization. “Had there been no corona, we could have had final agreements on some projects. We could still see some agreements in the days ahead,” says Sapkota.

China is also changing its approach to the financing of the BRI projects. In the initial days, it provided loans to several countries without considering their payback capacity, which created debt problems in some countries. Now, China is providing loans only after close examination of economic viability of such countries.

Dr. Upendra Gautam, general secretary of Nepal-China Study Centre, says the pandemic obviously affects China’s ongoing and future projects in Nepal under the BRI. Gautam, however, believes Nepal needs to come up with comprehensive plans clearly outlining its priority development projects.

“There could be resource constraints but if we come up with a clear vision and priority, I expect there to be no resource constraints on the BRI projects,” he says. Gautam says the start of the Health Silk Road is in keeping with the needs of the time and Nepal should tap into it to effectively deal with its corona crisis.

Whenever India-China or India-Pakistan border tensions flare up, one of the first concerns in Nepali minds is the fate of the frontline Gurkha soldiers. Accompanying this concern is a query about whether time has come for Nepal to rethink the recruitment of Nepali nationals into the Indian Army.

Same kinds of queries are now being raised as India and China face-off in Ladakh. If it comes to that, is it right for Nepali nationals to fight China, its immediate and vital neighbor, on behalf of a third country? Forget China. Is it even morally right to allow your citizens to serve as mercenaries?

With tensions against China mounting, the Gurkha soldiers of the Indian Army who are on leave in Nepal are now being summoned back to duty. In this light, the splinter Maoist group led by Netra Bikram Chand, in a June 20 statement, ‘reminded’ India to desist from using Nepali soldiers against China. 

Despite such concerns, Nepal is in no position to ask India not to use the Gurkhas against China, nor is it the current priority of any of Nepal’s major political parties. “We have to accept the reality that they are part of the Indian defense system. We can do nothing about it,” says political analyst Krishna Khanal. Though it is an emotional issue for Nepalis, he argues, the Indian defense force can deploy them as they wish.

Over the past 60 or 70 years, Nepal’s communist parties used this issue as a political instrument whenever they were out of power, Khanal adds. For instance, stopping recruitment into the Indian army was one of the 40 demands put forth by the mother Maoist party in 1996, right before they launched their insurgency.

During the insurgency, the Maoist party continued to raise this issue. But after joining peaceful politics in 2006, the party abandoned this agenda. Now Gurkha recruitment does not find a mention in the political documents of Nepal Communist Party, the ruling party formed after the merger of the mother Maoists and erstwhile CPN-UML. The Chand faction, plus some other fringe communist outfits, however, has continued to give voice to it.

“In the past, the CPN-UML, like other communist parties, also raised the issue of recruitment into Indian Army for political benefit. But it dropped the agenda when it came to power,” says Ashok Mehta, a retired general of the Indian Army who closely follows Nepal.

History’s burden

There is a long history of recruitment of Nepali nationals into the Indian and British armies. The British started enlisting Nepalis in their colonial army from 1815 when it set up the Gurkha regiments. After India’s independence, six Gurkha regiments were retained in the Indian Army while the British Army got four. Now, there are seven Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army, with 40 battalions and a total of 40,000 soldiers.

Nepal has never brought up the issue of revisiting Gurkha recruitment with India. But Nepal did send a note to Britain in February this year, seeking a review of the tripartite agreement signed in 1947 between Nepal, India and Britain that split the Gurkha regiments between India and Britain. In an initial reaction, Britain refused to make any changes in the agreement. Before that, Prime Minister KP Oli had raised the issue during his bilateral talk with then British Prime Minister Theresa May in 2019.

In 2016, Nepal and India formed the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) to study the entire gamut of bilateral relations and to suggest modifications. The EPG prepared a report covering all bilateral issues but not Gurkha soldiers. “We did not discuss Gurkha recruitment as it was beyond our jurisdiction. But the two countries can always discuss this,” says Surya Nath Upadhyay, a member of the Nepal half of the EPG. He says it is a sensitive issue and needs to be dealt with finesse.

Till date, Nepalis continue to be recruited into the Indian Army. Lured by attractive salary, pensions, and other social security benefits, they join the Indian Army and take oath to protect India’s national interests. According to Mehta, Nepali youths in Indian Army get four times the salary and pensions they would get in Nepal Army.

As of now, there are 126,000 Indian Gurkha pensioners in Nepal, and there is an Indian Ex-servicemen Welfare Organization in Nepal working for retired army personnel.

“We are in no condition—politically, economically or socially—to stop the recruitment into Indian Army,” says political analyst Khanal. In economic mess created by Covid-19, that prospect appears unlikelier still.

Fighting for India

Gurkha units have a history of fighting India’s key wars including in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971, all of them in Jammu & Kashmir and all against Pakistan. They also took part in the Indo-China war of 1962, and in later skirmishes between the two countries. There are many anecdotal evidences for this.

Writes ex-Indian Army Brigadier CS Thapa in Indian defense magazine Salute, “In 1962 the Chinese used loudspeakers daily against the company of Major Dhan Singh Thapa, PVC [Param Vir Chakra] asking the soldiers to withdraw as they were from Nepal.”

Then, in September-October 1967, the Nepali Gurkha soldiers were deployed against the Chinese at Nathu La pass between India and China. “A Gurkha unit,” according to Indian General V.K. Singh’s accounts, “gave the Chinese side a ‘bloody nose’… on that occasion, occupying a position after a brutal khukri assault.”

During the Doklam crisis in 2017, there were media reports that Gurkha soldiers were deployed at the forefront against China. But Mehta clarifies that Gurkha soldiers were deployed in Doklam only on second or third lines.

“If there are further tensions, China may raise this issue with Nepal stating that Nepali youths are fighting against China on India’s behalf. But so far as I know, China has lodged no such objection till date,” Mehta adds. Officials at Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed their ignorance of any formal Chinese objection to the use of Gurkha soldiers against them.

Despite growing domestic pressures on the two governments to settle outstanding border issues through diplomatic means, Nepal-India talks are unlikely anytime soon.

In Nepal, both ruling and opposition party leaders have been urging Prime Minister KP Oli to use his diplomatic skills to bring back Nepali territories through negotiations with India. Similarly, there is growing domestic pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to talk with Nepal without delay. Ex-diplomats and opposition leaders in New Delhi are also criticizing Modi for ignoring Nepal’s talks offers. In a June 15 statement, senior Indian National Congress leader Karan Singh said: “Although the dispute in question is a long-standing one, it was, if I recall correctly, raised by Nepal in November last year. Surprisingly, we did not seem to take the matter seriously.”

According to the popular Indian portal aajtak.com, the Indian PM-led Cabinet Committee on Security, the highest body in India to decide on matters of national security, had recently concluded that it was meaningless to hold talks on Kalapani after Nepal’s constitution amendment. According to the same report, the meeting concluded that India would not accept the Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report, and that the ‘special ties’ with Nepal would be revised.  

“The chances of specific talks on the border are indeed slim,” says an ex-Indian ambassador to Nepal. “But there may yet be phone conversations between prime ministers or foreign ministers to give a message that bilateral ties are on track.”

As the two sides know resolution of the border dispute will take time, both Oli and Modi seem to be in a mood to ‘normalize’ bilateral relation via phone conversations. The goal is to ensure that the border issue will not have spillover effects in other areas of bilateral ties, according to a senior leader in the ruling Nepal Communist Party.

Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh had said on June 15 that it was still possible to settle border issues with Nepal, with which India shares ‘special ties,’ in a clear indication that India’s political leadership wants to keep talking to Kathmandu—if not on the border.

One story, two versions

India’s Ministry of External Affairs recently briefed its media that India had proposed foreign secretary-level talks just before the constitution amendment process started. “Our offer of talks as well as our response to their offer was positive. In fact, we offered foreign secretary-level phone call and also visits of the two foreign secretaries as recently as just before the tabling of the bill,” Indian government officials told the Indian media on June 15. Indian officials said the onus was on Kathmandu to create conducive atmosphere.

The Nepali side, however, says it has gotten no formal request for talks from India. According to sources in New Delhi, India had communicated through various informal channels that foreign secretary-level talks could be organized if Nepal postponed the constitution drafting process, but there was no official request for talks. The Nepali side understood this as no more than a ploy to stop constitutional amendment.

After the amendment, Nepal’s priority has been to initiate dialogue with India. Speaking to reporters after constitution amendment, PM Oli said talks with India would start soon.

“Dialogue is always our priority. We have been proposing foreign secretary-level talks since November last year but India has not responded,” says Rajan Bhattarai, PM Oli’s foreign affairs advisor.

After India came up with its new political map in November, Nepal twice sent diplomatic notes to India, offering foreign-secretary level talks. India did not respond positively. Foreign-Secretary level talks are the only mutually agreed mechanism to deal with border disputes.

India’s position on dialogue is inconsistent. India first said talks could be held once the Covid-19 crisis is over. It urged Nepali politicians to create a positive atmosphere. But in the latest statement issued on June 13, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said: “This artificial enlargement of claims is not based on historical fact or evidence and is not tenable. It is also violative of our current understanding to hold talks on outstanding boundary issues.”

Phony promises

During the April 10 phone conversation between PM Oli and PM Modi, the former had briefly broached the border issue, stating that the two countries needed to sit for dialogue without further ado. The next phone conversation between Oli and Modi was scheduled for May 18, the date Nepal’s cabinet endorsed the new political map including Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. “The scheduled phone conversation was canceled by the Indian side at the eleventh hour,” says a source close to PM Oli.

Nepali Ambassador in New Delhi Nilambar Acharya has been in constant touch with officials of India’s Ministry of External Affairs. He is also in personal contact with some ministers of Modi cabinet but he too has been unable to persuade them for border talks.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali has categorically said that the cartographic change inscribed in the Nepali charter is permanent. In its future dialogue with India, Nepal is preparing to present evidences and historic facts that show Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura belong to Nepal. The country’s bottom-line is the withdrawal of Indian troops from Kalapani.

In the coming days, PM Oli will be under pressure to convince India to withdraw Indian forces from Kalapani. All political parties, including main opposition Nepali Congress, have put the onus of border talks on PM Oli.

After Ladakh

At the same time, the military standoff between India and China over their disputed border in Ladakh is escalating. India says 20 of its army personnel died in a hand-to-hand clash with PLA personnel on the night of June 15. This has further negated the possibility of Nepal-India dialogue to settle Kalapani.

“Nepal may now find it difficult to raise its case strongly, especially as a section in India had already been blaming Nepal for raising border issues at the behest of China,” says Pramod Jaiswal, Research Director of Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement, a Kathmandu-based think tank. “India could adopt a rigid stand while negotiating at the moment, as Kalapani is of strategic importance to it during the conflict with China.”

Jaiswal says Nepal would be wise to remain silent on border issues for a while. “It can raise them again when things calm down,” he advises.

Why are the urban Nepali youths taking to the streets amid the Covid-19 crisis?

Those in power espy conspiracies behind the ongoing youth protests that kicked off on June 9. On that day, around 500-600 people, most of them youths, had gathered near the prime minister’s official residence in Baluwatar to vent their ire at the government’s mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis and reports of rampant corruption in the name of pandemic control.

They were gathered there peacefully, and were maintaining social distance while doing so. Yet the police used force to disperse them as they were in violation of the lockdown rule stipulating that no more than 25 people may gather at one place. The pictures of peaceful protestors being hosed down by water canons and being carted off in police vans had the predictable effect of instigating further protests.

“It can be taken as a new civil society movement of intellectual youths who are not associated with any political party,” says political analyst Shyam Shrestha. “They are helping expose government inefficiencies in the handling of the Covid-19 crisis.” For him, the protests hint of a sizeable youth population that is away from day-to-day politics but is closely following what’s happening in the country. The slogan ‘Enough is enough’ reflects, in his view, the increasing intolerance of the youths with government incompetence and corruption in this time of national crisis. “The youth agendas are logical and valid,” Shrestha adds.

Among the protestors’ demands: transparency in the government expenses on Covid-19 control including on the purchase of medical supplies, improving the state of quarantine facilities, and increasing the frequency of PCR testing. Notably, they not only criticize the government but also appreciate its efforts to bring back the lost territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura.

Shame on Congress

The young protestors have hit the streets at a time the Nepali Congress (NC) has been panned for its ineffective role as the main opposition. The party has been limited to issuing press statements instead of doing anything substantial to make the government answerable. “These agenda should have been raised by the NC as an opposition party,” adds Shrestha. He says the new movement “is a slap on the face of Congress leaders and signals the emergence of a new opposition.” According to him, the government has failed to handle the pandemic despite no dearth of resources.

Pradeep Poudel, a youth NC leader, sees the current movement as a sign that even the supposedly apolitical youths are fully aware of the country’s situation. “In the past, youth wings of opposition parties used to take to the streets to protest government wrongdoing. This time another force has taken up the mantle,” he says. The agenda raised by these youths are genuine, he reckons. “The government cannot dismiss their impartial demands.”  

Outside Kathmandu, there have been protests in Pokhara, Biratnagar, Birgunj, Hetauda, and Biratnagar. Small-scale protests have also been held in various district headquarters. Refuting claims of its involvement, the Bibeksheel Party has clarified that its members have been involved only on an individual basis. During the protests, some Bibeksheel Party leaders were seen on the streets.

The protests had started at the initiative of a Facebook group named ‘COVID-19, Nepal: Enough is Enough’, which quickly grew from a couple of hundred to around 200,000 members in a matter of a week. “We do not have any political motive. When the government addresses our demands, we will stop protesting and return to our normal lives,” says Bibash Pokharel, a protestor. “It was the government mishandling of Covid-19 that prompted us to come to the streets.”

No stopping us

The youths are outraged by the inefficiency seen in managing the pandemic, and have charged the government of wasting five months without doing anything substantive. “The government has been unable to ensure good quarantine facilities, and the management of the people returning from abroad has been an absolute mess,” he adds. Pokharel and his fellow protestors reckon the prime minister’s remarks in the parliament downplaying Covid-19 risks worsened the situation.

There are concerns such as mass gatherings could lead to an alarming growth in the number of Covid-19 cases, and the government has urged protestors not to organize them. It provisioned for a fine of up to Rs 600 or up to six months in jail for those found violating lockdown rules. Leaders and cadres of the ruling Nepal Communist Party claim the protests are aimed at toppling the government.

Paurakh Karki, another youth protestor, responds that they have no interest in politics. “We just want to do away with pervasive corruption.” he clarifies. “It is not government change but social change that we seek.”

The youth activists we talked to said that the protests would continue so long as they didn’t see tangible improvements in the state’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The proposed $500 million grant under the American Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact is close to its day of reckoning. As per the agreement, the compact will have to come into force after June 30. But the Nepali parliament is yet to endorse it owing to the differences in the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

For a long time, Prime Minister KP Oli has been trying to convince senior party leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Jhala Nath Khanal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Bhim Rawal on the need for its parliamentary approval. He hasn’t succeeded.

Finance Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada faced considerable heat from within his own party after he incorporated the MCC grant in the new budget before its parliamentary endorsement. Responding to lawmakers’ criticisms, Khatiwada said: “If we cancel the compact, it will affect our bilateral relation with America, as well as the larger climate of international assistance to Nepal.”

With divisions in the NCP running deep, the ruling party formed an intra-party panel to study the compact and make recommendations. The panel recommended that the MCC compact be adopted only after making changes. The prime minister is not in a position to flatly reject the recommendation of a panel set up by his own party’s central committee.

If Dahal, Khanal and Nepal do not support it, the chances of the compact’s endorsement are slim. “The MCC compact cannot move ahead without an agreement in the party. The PM should act as per party directives and decisions,” senior leader Khanal, who was also a member of the panel, had told media persons on June 9.

PM Oli fears that if the compact is forcefully tabled in parliament, the move could backfire, as many party lawmakers have threatened to vote against it. Likewise, in the nine-member NCP Secretariat, KP Oli is in a minatory, and a hard line on the compact could further alienate him. Oli had called a Secretariat meeting on June 9 to build consensus on the compact but it had to be cancelled at the last minute. Now, Oli is talking to top party leaders on individual basis to forge a consensus.

Dreaded September

Inside the party, Dahal’s role on the MCC is crucial. Of late, he has not spoken much on the MCC debate but he is of the view that the compact should not be passed without extensive discussions in the party. Speaker of lower federal House Agni Sapkota, who is close to Dahal, is also in favor of consensus in the party before it is tabled in the parliament. A leader close to Oli says the prime minister made a mistake by agreeing to form an intra-party panel on the compact.

Meanwhile, the June 30 deadline is fast approaching. There could be further discussions, but it is beyond the jurisdictions of MCC Nepal office to say what will happen after that. If the current deadline is missed, the two sides could set another deadline. But if the issue drags on beyond September-October, when the fiscal year of the US government ends, there could be a problem. If the compact is not endorsed before that, the American government could divert the money elsewhere.

The Millennium Challenge Account Nepal (MCA-Nepal), however, is still hopeful the current parliamentary session will endorse it. “There is still some time before the June 30 deadline so it would be too early to speak on what will happen if the deadline is missed,” says Khadga Bahadur Bisht, Executive Director of MCA-Nepal. Bisht hopes the compact will be a top government priority following parliamentary endorsement of the budget and the new Nepali map.

According to those in the know, the main concern right now is not the deadline but parliamentary endorsement. Prime Minister Oli has been assuring the Americans that the work will be done in the current parliament session. “If there is a guarantee that the current session will endorse the compact, we can discuss deadline extension. Similarly, some points of the agreement can be clarified in line with the suggestions of ruling party lawmakers,” says another MCA-Nepal source requesting anonymity.

According to the source, the Covid-19 pandemic could be used as an excuse to extend the June 30 deadline. But for this, “there has to be a prior agreement between the two sides”.

Say it’s different

The ruling party leaders who oppose the compact fear it is a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Similarly, they say some provisions in the pact place it above the Nepali law. Projects under the compact do not follow Nepal’s public procurement act, they allege.

Some senior American officials have said that the MCC is a part of the IPS, which in turn created suspicion that America was trying to drag Nepal into a ‘military alliance’. But there have also been statements refuting the MCC’s links to the strategy. A few weeks ago, Alice G. Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, had said that the MCC, established in 2004, has no relation to President Donald Trump’s vision of an open and free Indo-Pacific.

The American Embassy in Kathmandu refused to comment on the looming deadline. In an email communication, the embassy says, “We understand that the Government of Nepal is discussing ratification of the MCC Compact.  To respect the processes of the government of Nepal, we have no comment at this time. The US looks forward to the Government of Nepal ratifying the compact as signed, so that critical electricity and road infrastructure assets can be built for the benefit of the people of Nepal.

Along with a powerful NCP faction, 10 other fringe communist parties are also warning the government not to endorse the MCC compact for the same reason. They think endorsement would compromise Nepali sovereignty and violate Nepal’s non-alignment policy.

There are also media reports of the Chinese advising the Oli government against endorsing the compact, as it could drive a wedge in the ruling party and further weaken Oli. In public, China has maintained that it is completely up to the sovereign government of Nepal to decide.

The Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal (JSPN) and some Nepali Congress (NC) lawmakers have pushed separate constitution amendment bills with the intent of addressing the pending concerns of the Madhesi people. The chances of either of these bills getting parliamentary approval are slim. Even the leaders who registered the bills are not optimistic.

As the government is not in a mood to address such private bills in the current budget session, they may not even be tabled in the full house. Right now the parliament is busy discussing the fiscal budget and the bill related to redrawing Nepal’s map.

The JSPN and NC leaders who registered the bills say the objective is to keep the Madhesi demands alive. Both JSPN and NC see Madhes as their base area and are looking to increase their appeal among common Madhesis.

JSPN leaders say their bill is aimed at creating momentum for a possible movement in the Madhes after the lockdown. According to Keshav Jha of JSPN, the new movement will incorporate all marginalized communities who have been deprived of their rights in the constitution. “We will launch a nationwide campaign for constitutional amendment through an alliance called the Rastriya Mukti Aandolan,” he says.

In order to lay the ground for another Madhes movement, two Madhes-based parties—the RJPN and Samajbadi Party Nepal—had recently joined forces to form the JSPN. Both the parent parties had already withdrawn their support to the government, blaming it of neglecting their demands. They had waited for over two years with the hope that PM Oli would amend the constitution as per their demands—to no avail.  

Many views

Without the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) on board, it will be impossible to secure the two-thirds votes needed for constitutional amendment. Though the NCP co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal is said to be positive about the demands of Madhes-based forces, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is not. There are differences between Oli and Dahal over both Madhesi and Janajati demands. Oli believes there is no need to amend the constitution before the next elections, while Dahal is of the view that the ruling party would do well to accommodate the sentiments of the identity-based forces.

PM Oli has repeatedly said, without elaborating, that the national charter would be amended only ‘on the basis of necessity and relevance’. As the constitution has not completed even its first five-year election cycle, Oli and those close to him think, it is too early to make substantial changes. Oli instead wants to engineer a split in Madhes-based forces to strengthen his own party’s position in Madhes.

Meanwhile, both the NC and Madhes-based parties agree in principle that the constitution should be amended, but they are somewhat divided on the contents of amendment.

The amendment bill tabled by the JSPN has several provisions related to language, citizenship, proportional representation of women in state mechanism, and forming a powerful body to investigate the properties of those who hold high positions. Madhesi leaders reckon the current anti-corruption body, the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), is incapable of investigating high-ranking government officials and politicians.

The NC has a position similar to Madhes-based parties on some issues. The bill registered by its lawmakers seeks to ease the process of providing citizenship to foreign women married to Nepali men, guarantee proportional representation of women in state bodies, and increase women’s representation in provincial assemblies. To address the demand of Madhes-based parties on re-demarcation of the borders of federal states, the NC wants a powerful federal commission.

The Madhes-based parties too have asked for a commission to re-think federal border demarcations. Their other demands include easing the process of citizenship for foreign women marrying Nepali men, proportional representation of women from all communities in state mechanisms, more rights to provincial government to make laws and mobilize local bodies, and granting executive rights to the deputy speaker in the speaker’s absence. All these, the Madhes-based parties say, should be done via a powerful federal commission.

Madhes-based leaders say the amendment bills are largely symbolic. “We are not hopeful about a favorable amendment,” says NC lawmaker Amresh Kumar Singh, one of the NC lawmakers to register the amendment bill on his party’s behalf. “Our goal is to expose PM Oli and NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba. They join hands on issues of vested interest. And yet when it comes to amending the constitution to address Madhesi people’s demands, they drag their feet.”

No Indian hand

In the past, India had openly backed Madhesi parties’ demand for constitutional amendment and had even enforced a blockade on Nepal to press for it. But the blockade backfired, and India has since maintained silence on Madhesi issues.

There are speculations that India lobbied with the Madhesi leaders to register their own amendment bills in order to thwart, or at least delay, the charter amendment that would recognize the 372 sq km of Limpidhura, Lipulekh and Mahakali as Nepali territory.

But a senior Madhesi leader requesting anonymity says India has nothing to do with the amendment bills concerning Madhes. “When the Oli government came up with a bill relating to Nepal’s new map, we decided to push our bill simultaneously,” he says.

India considers constitution amendment a bargaining chip with Kathmandu, he adds, and is not supportive of Madhesi demands.

Political analyst Vijaya Kant Karna too does not espy Indian hand behind the twin bills “The current Madhesi leadership still believes their demands can be resolved peacefully,” he says. “They want a win-win solution by convincing PM Oli. The feeling is that if PM is committed to stability and prosperity, he should take Madhes-based leaders into confidence.”

A United Nations Development Program (UNDP) survey of 700 businesses and 400 individuals, and consultations with over 30 private sector organizations and government agencies, came to a sobering finding: “The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted supply chains, shut or threatened the survival of small and informal enterprises, and made people highly vulnerable to falling back into poverty through widespread loss of income and jobs.”

This situation can be tackled only with swift and extreme measures. The consensus is that the government decision to continuously extend the lockdown without seemingly exploring other alternatives is dead wrong. (Even though the lockdown seems to have eased up a bit of late, the country is far from being fully open to business.) 

Sociologist Mrigendra Kumar Karki fears complete and partial lockdowns, which are likely to continue in the foreseeable future, will further widen the gap between haves and have-nots, as it is the poor who will suffer disproportionately. “There must be comprehensive short- and long-term studies on the multifarious impact of the lockdowns, and policy measures swiftly enacted to mitigate the effects,” he says.

Karki also points to the political implications of the extended lockdown. He argues people are gradually losing their trust in the government. “There is a feeling that the government won’t be able to help them if they get infected. People at the community level are themselves preparing to deal with the virus,” Karki says. He fears the mistrust between the state and its people will widen in the coming days.

In the Initial days, the lockdown disproportionately impacted daily-wage earners. The government tried to address the problem by providing them food-grains through local governments. Now, the lockdown is starting to weigh heavy even on those in organized sectors who rely on monthly salary for their livelihoods. Many private organizations have either not paid their staff, or delayed the payment. To take just one example, of around 500,000 people employed in tourism, many have already lost their jobs while others are on unpaid leave.

The extended lockdown is harming all sectors. “With almost 85 percent of the working population in Nepal informally employed, such work avenues provide no significant assurance to the informal economy. It instead has possibly worsened poverty, put food security at risk, increased social tension, and threatened mental health amongst informal workers,” says the aforementioned UNDP survey titled Rapid Assessment of Socio-Economic Impact of Covid-19.

Long, dark tunnel

Dr Kapil Dev Upadhyaya, a consultant psychiatrist at Center for Mental Health and Counselling (CMC-Nepal), says people are getting increasingly frustrated at the prospect of having to stay cooped up in their homes indefinitely.

“It is not only about the lockdown. People seem worried they may not be treated if they catch the virus. They have little faith in our shambolic healthcare and quarantine systems,” he adds. As a result, Upadhyaya foresees many more “mental and physical health problems” down the line.

The number of suicide cases has increased. According to the data provided by Nepal Police, 1105 people committed suicide between March 24 and May 30, a daily average of 16.25 compared to the average of 14-15 before the lockdown.  

As the economic hardship starts to bite, the fear of looting, burglary and other forms of social crimes has increased, too. Such incidents are more likely in rural areas with low presence of security forces.

There is also an urgent need to provide jobs to the unemployed. In 1996, when the Maoists began their armed insurgency, they had recruited large numbers of unemployed people from rural areas. “Today, a failure to create jobs for the youth could once more threaten Nepal’s political stability,” says asks Hemant Malla, a retired Deputy Inspector General of Police. Notably, the Maoist splinter group led by Netra Bikram Chand has already launched an armed insurgency.

As the number of infected people is increasing by the day, chances of immediately and completely lifting the lockdown are slim. Other countries are gradually opening up their economy. In our case, there has been a continuous lockdown starting March 24—and the government is struggling to justify it. Unless there is a radical shift in the thinking of state authorities, things will only go from bad to worse.