Submit your Article

How would you evaluate Nepal’s healthcare system in the new federal set-up?

Previously, we had a central ministry under which various department and offices functioned. There were five regional centers overseeing district health offices. At the grassroots level, there were health post and sub-health posts. Then there were health volunteers and Aama Samuha (‘mother's groups’) at the grassroots to deal with general health issues. We used those entities for both preventive and curative measures, and there was a lot of coordination among them. We have now adopted a federal structure, which is good in principle. Yet we have failed to ensure robust health structures under it.

How has Nepal’s healthcare system changed in the new set-up?

Earlier, district health offices directly supervised health posts and sub-health posts. Regional health offices supervised and monitored district health offices. The Ministry of Health and Population and its departments in turn monitored the regional health offices. There was a robust chain of command from the center to the grassroots. This helped maintain order in the healthcare system. In the federal set-up, we have a three-tier government. Health posts, PHCs and hospitals with fewer than 15 beds are now under the local government. Under the federal government, there are just big 6-7 hospitals. 

Are you suggesting Nepal’s healthcare system has been facing problems since the country was declared a federation?

A couple of things have created problems. First, the federal government has failed to properly manage human resources. The adjustment of civil servants has not been completed even in over three years; there is either over- or under-staffing. In rural areas, human resources are scant. In a centralized system, we could have forced staff to go to rural areas. We are allocating more and more budget to the provinces, but they are unable to instruct local units to work. That’s the crux of the problem. There is no coordination between provincial and local units. This weakness was also evident during the Dengue fever outbreak last year. 

Second, management of logistics and infrastructure has been faulty. For example, we gave provincial governments budget to buy necessary vaccines and medicines. Of the seven provinces, only Sudur Paschim was able to buy Vitamin A capsules for children. Finally, the federal government had to itself purchase Vitamin A and provided them to other provinces. The bodies authorized to buy vaccines—provincial social development ministries—cannot even make such simple purchases. There is no proper supply-chain for it. Provincial governments have failed to buy and manage other medicines also. There are instances of corruption while purchasing medicines. At the same time, provincial and local units are unable to spend their health budget. And when they spend, they do it unnecessarily.

What about management of information on various diseases? 

The management of information related to diseases is also problematic. Previously, there was a system of proper reporting to the ministry and Department of Health when there was even a minor outbreak of a disease at the grassroots. This reporting process has been disrupted in the federal structure. Local units are not reporting to the upper levels about diseases and health problems in their areas. If we fail to pass the information to the concerned agencies, we cannot handle new diseases. Again, we saw such problems during the outbreak of Dengue in Kathmandu last year. But we seemed to have learned little from our experience.

What could have been done to avoid such problems? 

When I was the Acting Secretary at the Ministry of Health and Population in 2018, we had recommended establishing testing labs in each of the seven provinces because we have only one lab for infectious diseases in Teku, Kathmandu. Labs are needed to immediately test suspected patients at local levels. They also minimize overload at the center. If there were labs in all seven provinces, testing for Covid-19 could have been much easier. But the provincial governments did not take any initiative towards this end. We see coronavirus samples of suspected patients being sent to Kathmandu for a test. There are qualified people outside the government. We can hire them for the provincial labs. 

Do we need a specialized body to tackle epidemics and pandemics? 

Yes. There has been a lot of discussion on it but no progress. We should immediately set up a Center for Disease Control (CDC). We see such entities in countries like the US and India.  Such a body at the central and provincial levels can do research on how to deal with new viruses like corona, as well as train healthcare workers, and inform the public. Additionally, they will empower health workers in dealing with new viruses. Such centers can also conduct research on future pandemics.

Nepal may become an epicenter of other infectious diseases in the future. Before the coronavirus, there was an outbreak of common cold in Humla and Jajarkot districts but we failed to study them. The diseases may also be different in the mountains, hills and plains. A center like the CDC can help prepare us. We are now totally dependent on the World Health Organization since we don’t have an independent research center. After the outbreak of Dengue, we had prepared a plan of action about the CDC. 

Are you suggesting that even in the federal structure, the healthcare system should be centralized? 

Certainly. There should be some sort of centralized system in public health. When we deal with an epidemic or pandemic, there should be a proper chain of command because qualified professionals are concentrated in Kathmandu. We can hand over the duties to provincial levels once they get qualified manpower. But unless provincial and local governments are capable, a proper chain of command should be maintained. Currently, there is a lack of coordination among the three tiers of government. 

Health is a fundamental right of every citizen. There should be universal health coverage. All governments shoulder equal responsibility to provide health services to the people. But the performance of local bodies in health services is dismal; even the health workers are deprived of basic facilities. Our federal structure has failed to ensure the constitutional provision of mandatory healthcare to all citizens. 

Can you share the experience of other countries with federated healthcare systems? 

Different countries have different systems so there cannot be a perfect comparison. But we can learn from others. Consider Pakistan, whose federal model is similar to Nepal’s. They had to centralize some of their health systems when their federally administered programs failed. The provinces of developed countries are resourceful so they can make their own infrastructure. But that is not the case in Nepal. For instance, the Kathmandu Metropolitan City has far more resources than a rural municipality. In some places, there is a lack of technical manpower, while in other places logistics are missing.

We adopted federal health structures without sufficient homework and thinking. There was a hurry. The problem is that non-medical people dominate provinces and local units. Instead of having provincial social development ministries look after health-related issues, we need separate health ministries at the provincial level. You cannot expect good output when you break the chain of command. 

So the existing healthcare system should be totally revamped? 

Definitely. First, all systems should be centrally commanded. Instead of social development ministries at the provincial level, there should be health ministries. There should be CDC in all seven provinces. There should be well-equipped labs in all seven. For this, we need political commitment. All political parties should understand the flaws in our current system. If these flaws are not corrected immediately, we can neither guarantee universal health coverage nor ensure health as a fundamental right. We have to make federal and provincial structures coordinate effectively. 

Why was the federal healthcare system botched even though there was a lot of time to get it right?

There was a lot of discussion about the healthcare system suited for a federal set-up. To be frank, higher authorities of other ministries were dominant in decision-making. The constitution allows deployment of necessary manpower to provide health services. But this did not happen because people who were in decision-making process did not take strong stand when it was needed.  

Nepal also seems to have learned little from the experiences of other countries.

You are correct. We shared the experiences of other countries with our bosses. We prepared a blueprint of the healthcare system suitable for Nepal. However, certain people acted like they knew everything and ignored our suggestions. There was dissatisfaction with the new structure, and some health workers threatened to protest. But people in decision-making simply ignored them.

How do improve communication and coordination between the three tiers of government?

There is coordination in some places but only due to individual efforts. The system as a whole is not working properly. There is a sort of vacuum but no one is paying attention. Until we have separate health ministries at the provincial level, there will continue to be a void. The current provincial health departments cannot give orders to peripheral health posts under local units. You see that both local units and provincial governments are now building corona quarantine centers and temporary hospitals on their own. There is no coordination. It would be more efficient for the two tiers of government to combine their efforts and resources. 

Kathmandu: With the country locked down, people are confused about their freedom of movement. The government has urged them to stay indoors except in ‘emergencies’. 

Social media users are requesting the government to clarify lockdown guidelines. Government sources, however, say the guidelines are clearly established in the Essential Services Operation Act, 2014. The Act covers 19 areas under essential services, including transport and storage of goods, supply and distribution of drinking water, services related to hospital, collection of waste, and printing.

The recent government directive states that people can come out only to purchase essential stuff like food and medicine. 

Police deployed on the streets have been convincing people who have ventured out to return to their homes. In the event of a violation of the lockdown, people would be subjected to six-month jail or Rs 600 in fines, or both. In Chitwan, police have already arrested over a dozen people for violating the lockdown. 

Mentioning Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense Ishwor Pokhrel, Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa tweets, “People seem confused about what they can do and what they cannot—please make that clear immediately. Please tell them how this lockdown helps prevent the spread of coronavirus.”

Speaking to APEX, Nepal Police Spokesperson Shailesh Thapa Kshetri says that if people have to travel in a vehicle, they first need to dial 100, the police hotline, and then visit the District Administration Office to get a pass.

“As far as getting vegetables and medicines in nearby shops and stores are concerned, people you can go outside and buy. But you cannot linger there,” Kshetri says. “If someone is seriously ill, we can arrange for an ambulance or even use our own vehicles to take them to a hospital.” Kshetri says the police have also been informing those who are confused about the lockdown.

In other countries, governments have come up with various guidelines on lockdowns. For instance, the United Kingdom has asked people to leave home only for four reasons: to buy medicine and food, to walk (alone), for children below 18 to meet their parents, and for travel to jobs which cannot be done at home. 

Across the world, a lockdown is considered more flexile than a curfew.

No, Covid-19 had nothing to do with Event 201 on 18 October 2019 in New York City. Yet it turned out to be an ominous herald. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security had hosted the high-level pandemic exercise in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In attendance were global public health leaders. 

Summarizing the event’s goal of asking vital questions, renowned infectious disease specialist Judy Stone wrote in the Forbes, “What will happen when an unexpectedly virulent flu, or SARS, or Disease X—any other rapidly spreading viral infections—spreads globally causing a pandemic? How prepared are we? What do we need to do to be ready?” 

Soon after, the coronavirus epidemic started in Wuhan of Hubei province in China and quickly spread across the world. As Stone suggested, the old public health systems in both the developed and developing worlds seemed unprepared, hinting at the need for an overhaul with a new kind of long-term planning. 

Nepal’s former Health Minister Gagan Kumar Thapa says a change in mindset is vital. “The 2015 earthquake taught us that we were short on long-term disaster planning and in dealing with health issues in such cases.” Thapa thus proposed a Mass Causality Center under the ministry, which would be operated with the help of security agencies. The proposal was forwarded to the finance ministry. “But nothing happened thereafter,” Thapa laments. “Such a center could have simultaneously treated thousands of patients.” 

He also points out that the other essential during a pandemic is the capability of testing “thousands of suspected people quickly”, which should thus be our “long-term strategy.” 

Missed tests

The coronavirus has exposed the weaknesses of health systems of the US and other powerful European countries. As short-term measures, they are rushing to build temporary hospitals and testing facilities. But most of these facilities have either been built too late or are overwhelmed. Nepal’s existing hospitals are also desperately short of ICU beds and ventilators. Nor have there been nearly enough tests to detect the presence of Covid-19 among the broader population. Broadening testing is also crucial in stopping the spread of the virus, as China and South Korea have recently shown. 

More than that, there is a need for greater investment to build a robust public health system capable of dealing with pandemics. Dr. Sushil Nath Pyakurel, former Director General of Department of Health Services under the Ministry of Health and Population, says there have been several policy recommendations. “We had suggested setting up regional testing labs, to no avail,” Pyakurel says. 

“It’s a tragedy that samples collected from Dhangadi and Biratnagar need to be brought to Kathmandu for tests, in what is a tardy process,” adds Pyakurel, who has also served as the chief specialist at the Ministry of Health and Population. 

Pyakurel suggests the establishment of a Center for Disease Control (CDC) and its expansion in all seven provinces without delay. “We see such entities in countries like the US and India. They can conduct researches on how to deal with new viruses like corona, train healthcare workers, and inform the public,” he says. 

Similarly, security agencies like Nepal Army, Nepal Police, and Armed Police Forces can be trained to prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease emergencies. Right now the security forces have their own hospitals but they have only limited capability and are in no position to handle the corona pandemic. “We have a coordinating mechanism called Health Emergency Operative Center under the Ministry of Health, a combined body of Nepal Army, police forces, the Home ministry, the Rotary club, and Red Cross. It can be activated during a pandemic,” Pyakurel says. 

Indices of failure

According to the Global Health Security Index published in October 2019, none of the 195 countries in it, including developed ones, were well prepared for a pandemic. Nepal ranked 111th in the index prepared by The Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation with the Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. 

In South Asia, India, Bhutan, and Pakistan are better positioned to deal with pandemics than the other five countries in the region. Although the GHSI ranking puts Nepal in a ‘more prepared’ category in ‘maintaining health security’, the country lags in ‘detection and reporting’. The report indicates that Nepal’s laboratories, real-time surveillance and reporting, and epidemiology workforce are unprepared to tackle pandemics. Government officials say when there are outbreaks of infectious diseases like Zika and Ebola, there is some discussion on how to deal with them. Yet a collective long-term plan to handle pandemics is sorely missing. 

Dr. Anup Subedi, an infectious disease physician, says dealing with pandemics is more difficult in a federal system with its fragmented and decentralized health systems. “There is a need for close coordination among federal, provincial and federal governments during pandemics,” he says, adding Nepal’s government agencies work in ad hoc manner and reactively during a crisis. “We need comprehensive measures to deal with pandemics. We also have capable manpower but the state has been unable to tap their talent.” 

Due to phenomena like climate change, urbanization and globalization, more pandemics are likely in the days ahead. The Ebola in West Africa earlier this decade prompted many countries to take steps to fight large-scale epidemics but when the outbreak was controlled, their preparations were shelved too. As a long-term measure, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has instructed the Ministry of Health to start the process of building a separate hospital to deal with pandemics.

Common corona course

What can regional organizations do to tackle such pandemics? The successful video conference among the heads of SAARC member states suggests such regional organizations can chalk out a common strategy to fight such pandemics. Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya says SAARC and BIMSTEC can play a vital role in controlling pandemics both in the short and long runs. 

“As a short-term measure, there could be a proper exchange of information on the virus among the countries. Both SAARC and BIMSTEC have millions in unspent money. This can be used to buy test kits, arrange for protective equipment and other logistics, and distribute them across the region,” says Acharya. “Those organizations should prepare a long-term regional strategy to build new institutions and revitalize old mechanisms.” 

Now the countries are sealing their borders and canceling flights unilaterally, leaving many people stranded. Acharya reckons “perhaps organizations like SAARC and BIMSTEC can help bridge this communication gap as well.”  

The big question after the March 15 video conference between the top leaders of eight SAARC member states is: Will Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invoking of SAARC to address the common coronavirus threat lead to the holding of the long-postponed 19^th Summit of the regional body? Even if the deferred Islamabad summit cannot be held, does it at least signal India’s renewed interest in SAARC, a forum it has been ditching in favor of BIMSTEC in recent times?

There were multiple factors are play behind the video conference. One, India could have realized that the strategy of isolating Pakistan was not working as big powers like China, the US and Russia continue to humor the Pakistani leadership. By not talking to Islamabad, New Delhi was putting itself in a difficult spot, none more so than in Afghanistan as the Americans slowly draw down their forces there. Two, the Indian leadership surely realized that so long as there are remnants of Covid-19 in Pakistan, India could never be assured it is safe from the virus.

Three, and perhaps most important, was the domestic factor. India has in recent times been mired in a religious strife between Hindus and Muslims over a recently passed legislation that discriminates against the Muslims. This did Modi’s image some harm. By holding the video conference where he projected himself as the undisputed leader of South Asia, Modi could reassert his leadership credentials. It was perfect optics.

But what about SAARC then? According to Nishchal N. Pandey, Director of the Center for South Asian Studies in Kathmandu, the video conference has renewed hope that the stalled SAARC process would be “reinvigorated and we will soon see a SAARC Summit in Islamabad.” Not so fast, says Ashok Mehta, an old Nepal hand in India. Modi, says Mehta, now wants to firmly establish the Hindu agenda and “is in no mood to talk to Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan is also not keen on talking to India either.”

The absence of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan from the video conference also signaled that Islamabad is hesitant to accept India’s leadership of South Asia. Perhaps it sees no reason to do so when it has the full support of China, its all-weather friend, and continued utility for the US and Russia. SAARC can wait.  

How do you assess the role of Nepali Congress as the main opposition party?

Nepali Congress is the oldest party around. But more than that, it has contributed and sacrificed a lot to emancipate people from autocratic regimes and establish democracy. It has played a vital role in ensuring freedom of speech and expression and creating a pluralistic society. It led the democratic movement of 1950 that brought changes in the social, political and cultural spheres. Even today, Nepali people have great affection for the party.

Now we see some weaknesses in party leadership. It has failed to make some crucial decisions. If the Congress is weak now, it’s only because of the leadership, not its policy and programs, in which it is far ahead of others. Even the com­munist parties tread on its footsteps to build their rhetoric of social and political change. But having failed to act per public expectation, time has come for a revamp of party organization.

What in your view makes Sher Bahadur Deuba a weak leader?

Certainly, he has some weak­nesses. But we have to look back at the party’s recent history. Vet­eran leaders Girija Prasad Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai also had weak­nesses. Deuba is no exception. If the party operates in a democratic way and its organization is robust, the weakness of a single person doesn’t make much difference.

The new generation does not have to accept all decisions of party lead­ership. Deuba-led NC has failed to meet the expectations of both the people and the party members. Deuba has made several mistakes as the party leader. He never tried to correct those mistakes even when he got multiple chances to do so. That is why dissatisfaction has piled up against him. Deuba has pub­licly confessed to his mistakes on different occasions. But he keeps repeating them. Now he is not in a position to answer his critics. Party leaders and cadres loved him and gave him many opportunities. But he split the party. As president, he has failed to deliver.

But Deuba is still mighty power­ful in the party. Why?

The party president of Nepali Con­gress has traditionally been strong. Even if two-thirds central working committee members and district cadres stand against him, the party president will still be powerful. In the past, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai ran the party his own way. Members sat in protest against Girija Prasad Koirala in front of his residence, but he was still a powerful presi­dent. Cadres showed him black flags on several occasions. Compared to them, Deuba appears weak.

If he is weak, why has no seri­ous challenger emerged against Deuba?

Just listen to the speeches of oth­er top leaders. They talk about the past, they discuss the current sit­uation, and they criticize the gov­ernment. But they can’t come up with any plan for the future. They don’t have a vision to claim party leadership. There is no policy-re­lated discussion in the party. Even party cadres do nothing more than make rounds of top leaders’ homes hoping to bag lucrative appointments. Top leaders look at the fawning cad­res and think their public base is secure.

So isn’t there anyone to replace Deuba in the Nepali Congress?

One thing is sure: the NC cadres want to see leadership change. But change does not mean change of an individual. Changing certain leaders alone cannot bring fresh hope to the party. Similarly, change should not be based on age alone. There should be transformational changes in different areas. Even now, no member has opposed Deuba’s leadership in terms of policy and programs.

There are discussions only from the angle that if a certain person gets leadership, he can bring about dynamic changes. Till now, no one has officially announced their candidacy for party president. Instead of new faces, people expect a concrete vision for the party. Even the contenders to Deuba’s post do not have a new vision or policy to revamp the party. Cadres are looking for a new vision, not only a new face.

Why is there always a dispute over the holding of the NC General Convention?

The party’s General Conven­tion should be held within the stipulated timeframe. In the case of Nepali Congress, there is a tendency of deferring General Convention on various pretexts. The communist parties held their conventions even during the Panchayat era when they were outlawed.

But the NC did not hold a sin­gle convention at that time. Even after that, party president has always tried to avoid convention to stay in power. Such a tendency is evident in the NC sister organi­zations as well. The president wants to defer convention to strengthen his position. In case of crisis and difficult situations, the party statute allows exten­sion of the president’s term. But this liberal policy has often been misused.

What are the chances of anti-Deu­ba camps banding together to defeat him in the upcoming convention?

It would be too early to say any­thing about it. There is still a lot of time before the convention. Even the leaders loyal to Deuba may later abandon him. Considering the sen­timents of the cadres, Deuba’s aides may ask him not to run for party president again. His long-supporters may be telling him that time is not in his favor.

Who could be Deuba’s successor from his own camp?

Right now, I cannot say anything about any individual. It is also pos­sible that Deuba himself declares he would not run for presidency. The current camp may not remain intact. History shows that leaders tend to switch camps. For instance, after 1990, Deuba supported Girija Prasad Koirala for a long time. Deu­ba became home minister and ulti­mately prime minister with Koirala’s support. But Deuba later challenged Koirala for party presidency.

Should senior leaders like Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel retire from active politics, as some have suggested, and clear the ground for new faces?

Many have suggested that they retire. I do not think that they should give up politics entirely. But it would be better if they confine themselves to the roles of party guardians. They can still have some in energizing party organizations. If they play such a role, it could bring some novelty to the party.

Is it possible that the upcoming convention will hand over lead­ership to the younger generation?

I do not think a new generation means just a new face or young age. New vision and direction are need­ed. Change only on the basis of age does not make much sense. Even Deuba’s election as party president was taken as a handover of party leadership to new generation and there was huge expectation from him. He became president suppos­edly representing the party’s young voice. Now, see, the new generation is totally disappointed by Deuba.

What explains the persistent rifts within the Nepali Congress since the 1990 political change?

Not only Nepali Congress, oth­er parties have a similar problem. Only the appearance of such rifts differs from party to party. Lack of discipline is a major weakness in the NC. 

The video conference among government and state heads of eight South Asian countries on March 15 has generated some hope about the revival of the moribund South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The conference was the first of its kind after an indefinite postponement of the 2016 SAARC Summit, and suggests that SAARC member countries are capable of collaborating on pressing common issues such as public health and climate change by setting aside their other differences.

The immediate response of other SAARC member states to Modi’s tweet proposing the conference signaled their eagerness to revive the regional body. In the tweet, Modi had also urged SAARC member states to chalk out a strong, common strategy to fight the novel coronavirus.

Some saw the conference as the first step towards the long-delayed 19th SAARC Summit originally scheduled to take place in Islamabad in 2016. Says Nishchal N. Pandey, Director of the Center for South Asian Studies in Kathmandu, “The video conference has renewed hope that the stalled SAARC process would be reinvigorated and we will soon see a SAARC Summit in Islamabad. It also underscores that there is no alternative to the SAARC in our region.”

Similarly, Nihar R. Nayak, Research Fellow with the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, a New Delhi-based think-tank, sees this as an opportunity for India, Pakistan and other member countries to revive the SAARC process. “If Pakistan cooperates, it could be an icebreaker. Otherwise, once the corona scare subsides, the tempo will die down.”

After the video conference, Pakistan also proposed to host a meeting of the health ministers of the eight SAARC countries to formulate a “coordinated response” to the health crisis. Other countries are yet to respond to the proposal.

Less than meets the eye

Since the postponement of the 2016 SAARC summit, Nepal, as the chair of the regional grouping, has been continuously urging India to agree to another summit. But India has not shown any interest, insisting that the regional environment for such a summit is ‘inappropriate’. Yet India has also expressed its readiness to sit in summit-level talks should they be held outside Pakistan—a proposal Islamabad has rejected outright.

The keenness of the Oli government in the SAARC process has been evident all along. Addressing the SAARC Standing Committee at the SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu on 8 February 2020, Prime Minister KP Oli did not mince words. Stating that Nepal was eager to hand over SAARC chairmanship, he expressed his hope that “the SAARC member states will come up with consensus to convene the summit at an early date.” He said that as a founding member and current chair of SAARC, Nepal “strongly believes in regional cooperation to promote collective well-being of the people of South Asia.”

But there are also strong views that SAARC-level cooperation will not extend beyond the fight against the coronavirus. India, in this view, proposed the video conference as it cannot tackle the virus on its own given its porous borders with its neighbors. Moreover, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was notably absent from the conference, sending a junior-ranking minister to take his place. According to Ashok Mehta, a retired general of the Indian Army and an old Nepal hand, “Narendra Modi government right now wants to firmly establish the Hindu agenda inside the country and thus is in no mood to talk to Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan is also not keen on talking to India.”

Vijay Kant Karna of the Center for Social Inclusion and Federalism in Kathmandu seconds Mehta’s views. But Karna adds that even though he sees no possibility of another SAARC summit-level meeting, the video conference does give a message that “South Asian states can collaborate on common issues like public health and climate change by developing working relations with each other.”

India’s focus on BIMSTEC

In lieu of SAARC, India has been pushing the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) since 2016. Accusing Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism on its soil, India has since been promoting the regional group that does not include Pakistan. At a BRICS outreach program in October 2016, India invited state and government heads from BIMSTEC, not from SAARC. Likewise, when Modi was being sworn-in as Indian prime minister for the second time in May 2019, he invited leaders from BIMSTEC countries, unlike his first swearing-in when he had invited SAARC country heads, including the prime minister of Pakistan.

As the Indian Minister for External Affairs S. Jaishankar put it earlier this year: “SAARC has certain problems and I think we all know what it is [sic]… even if you were to put the terrorism issue aside, there are connectivity and trade issues. If you look at why BIMSTEC leaders were invited for PM’s swearing-in… we see energy, mindset and possibility in BIMSTEC.”

Not only government officials, even New Delhi-based think-tanks these days promote the idea that the BIMSTEC platform is more beneficial to India than the SAARC platform.

Yet this is not the view of other South Asian countries. Bangladeshi Ambassador to Nepal Mashfee Binte Shams categorically told APEX some time ago that BIMSTEC could never replace SAARC, as the two entities had completely different purposes. “SAARC brings together the countries of the region that were closely integrated before the British came here and created artificial divisions. Before the British arrived, the region had many principalities and kingdoms but we were integrated and there was a lot of internal trade. So SAARC tries to revive that pre-British integration,” she said. That is also the view shared by other SAARC countries bar India.

But India is not convinced. This is why many reckon the video conference over the coronavirus pandemic might only have been an exercise in India’s power-projection. “As the largest country in this region, India wants to show it has the capacity to play a leading role here,” says Chandra Dev Bhatta, a Nepali political analyst who has closely followed the BJP politics in India. “The video conference was a message that during a crisis India always stands with its neighbors”.

As a precaution over coronavirus, which has already spread to over 100 countries around the world, most political parties in Nepal have suspended their large-scale gatherings. And on time; but the parties need to do more. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that Nepal, along with other South Asian countries, is at high risk.

The ruling Nepal Communist Party has suspended all meetings and gatherings aimed at strengthening its organizational structure. The main opposition Nepali Congress too has canceled activities in the run-up to its General Convention. Smaller parties have acted similarly. But are our political parties doing anything substantive to proactively mitigate the corona scare?

With their nation-wide bodies, they can certainly contribute. “Political parties have organizations from the center to grass-roots level,” says political analyst Bhojraj Pokharel. “They have the biggest and widest networks of all entities in the country. So they can definitely help raise awareness about the virus.”

Political cadres can also reach far-flung areas with low presence of traditional or social media and discuss precautionary measures with the people.

Two months after the COVID-19 outbreak in next-door China and after the spotting of the first and only coronavirus case in Nepal thus far, our parties are yet to carry out any substantive awareness drive. (Of course, they claim otherwise.) Instead, major parties—ruling NCP and opposition NC—seem busy in internal power plays. In the parliament, lawmakers have raised questions about government preparations in tackling a possible outbreak. The parliament is also discussing a motion related to the coronavirus. Moreover, the political parties have posted some preventive measures against coronavirus in their social media. But there is as yet no public engagement.

“Political parties should constantly talk about safety measures with the people. But the top-down hierarchical nature of our parties hinders with this kind of public activism,” says Devraj Dahal, another political analyst.

“At the same time, there should be coordination among government agencies and ministries. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs is now issuing statements on coronavirus, which is not the right approach,” Dahal adds.

Political leaders and cadres can take to the streets, they can talk to the people, and they can give out the right information, which is not happening at the moment. A crisis can in fact be an opportunity for political parties to show their presence.

But it seems even people are unaware of the role of political parties during a crisis. They believe handling a crisis is solely the government’s duty. But it is worth asking: If parties can mobilize thousands of cadres during election campaigns, why can’t they do so to raise awareness against a potentially deadly disease?

Representatives of political parties reject the allegation that they have done nothing substantive on coronavirus. “We have already instructed party rank and file to launch door-to-door campaign to inform people about preventive measures,” says Nepali Congress Spokesperson Bishwa Prakash Sharma. He claims Congress was the first party in Nepal to prepare a coronavirus video and disseminate it over social media. Besides, Congress youth wing Nepal Tarun Dal is monitoring the market to check the artificial shortage of daily commodities.

Similarly, ruling NCP leaders say they have already issued a circular to their sister organizations and grassroots level cadres to help raise awareness. Party General Secretary Bishnu Poudel says they have instructed their cadres to go to every household with preventive measures against coronavirus. “They have been instructed to work in coordination with people’s representatives, civil society leaders and local media,” Poudel claims.

The Sajha Party has launched its own ‘Sajha Namaste Campaign’ urging people not to shake hands and to do a ‘Namaste’ instead. “We have prepared a video on corona incorporating the views of health experts and we are disseminating it through social media,” says the party’s Prakash Chandra Pariyar. Besides such messages on social media, the party, however, is yet to instruct its members to undertake a door-to-door campaign. But Pariyar claims Sajha fully understands the priority right now is “to inform people about preventive measures”.

Even though these parties claim to have deployed their cadres as well as their sister and youth wings against the virus, their workers are seldom seen in the field knocking on people’s doors.

If they are willing, the political parties can help in other ways as well. First, party cadres can identify any weakness on part of the government agencies and put pressure on them to correct them immediately. “Then, in case of an outbreak, they can coordinate with concerned agencies to provide medical care to the people,” according to Pokharel, the political analyst.

“Best of all would be for all the political parties to join hands to tackle the common challenge,” Pokharel says. Instead, in Nepal, the tendency is to go it alone to prove your loyalty to the people—even (or especially) in times of crisis.

Bamdev Gautam is an ambitious leader long known for his shoot-from-the-hip nature. Arguably, in the 56 years he has been in active politics, Gautam has experienced more upheavals than any of his other ex-CPN-UML contemporaries.

Gautam always finds a way to be at the center of national politics. This time, he is in the headlines for his naked display of ambition to become the prime minister via the route of the National Assembly, the federal upper house. Earlier, the 76-year-old leader had been chosen as the head of the ruling Nepal Communist Party’s powerful organization department by the party’s central committee. The same meeting had elevated him to the post of the party vice-chairman.
But then Gautam is someone who lost the most recent parliamentary elections, which otherwise saw a near complete communist sweep. So what is the secret to his continued power despite the election loss?

“He is a good organizer and someone who has been continuously working for his party for nearly six decades,” says Hari Roka, a political analyst who has in the past worked with Gautam. Roka reckons Gautam did a sterling job as the head of the former CPN-UML’s organization department, and as such he has now been given the responsibility of leading the NCP’s organization department as well. “In the capacity of UML organization department head, Gautam was able to leave a good imprint on the party rank and file,” Roka adds. This legacy is now reflected in his clout in the 441-member NCP central committee.

According to Roka, Gautam is also someone capable of taking big risks at decisive moments.Gautam’s ambitions were whetted when he got to lead the UML organization department 22 years ago. Back then, he had initiated a signature campaign to dislodge party general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. After he failed to do so and thereby to grab the leadership, he split the party, forming his breakaway CPN-ML. His newfangled party failed to win a single seat in the 1999 parliamentary elections, and he again merged with the UML. Yet the split had somewhat dented his reputation as he had come to be seen as a cunning backstabber.

Accustomed to power Says NCP leader Tanka Karki, who has also closely worked with the septuagenarian leader, “Gautam has continuously occupied powerful positions since 1990. In a feudal society, a leader who remains in power for so long invariably develops unique strengths.” Gautam joined the communist party in 1964 as full-time party cadre, and was first elected in the House of Representatives in 1991.

In 1997, he became home minister for the first time, a post he held thrice, in addition to becoming deputy prime minister three times as well. The Home is a powerful ministry and Gautam steadily increased his hold on the bureaucracy from there. In 2009, the UML Butwal general convention elected Gautam party vice-chair and that portfolio helped him cement his hold on the party as well. Besides, as a head of the party’s Peasant’s Federation, Gautam cultivated a good network of cadres across the country.

After the NCP’s formation in May 2018, party co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been lending a strong support to Gautam. Their relations go back a long way. During the Maoist insurgency, Gautam was in constant touch with the top Maoist brass and was of the view— against the prevailing wisdom at the time—that the Maoist party should be accommodated into the political mainstream. It was Gautam who along with leader Yubaraj Gyawali reached Rolpa to forge a six-point agreement aimed at the mainstreaming of the Maoists. (This agreement was the precursor to the later 12-point agreement between the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists.)
He also played a vital role in the formation of the left alliance in 2017 and in the unification of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center). Gautam in fact had been advocating for such unity since the 2006 political changes.Of late party co-chair Dahal has been publicly saying that Gautam’s time to be prime minister may have finally arrived.Gautam time?

The party secretariat’s decision to pick Gautam as a member of the National Assembly was opposed from in and outside the parliament. More than that, a proposal was floated to amend the constitution to pave the way for a National Assembly member to become prime minister. After widespread criticism, this plan was dropped—at least for the time being.

As constitutional lawyer Bipin Adhikari put it to APEX last week: “I do not think the House of Representatives would agree to tie up its hands and legs by allowing the National Assembly to pick a prime minister. The people who are pushing the amendment have not thought this through.”

Yet this is not the first time a politician defeated in national elections has tried to get to power through the backdoor—and succeeded. After his defeat in the first Constituent Assembly election in 2008, UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal was nonetheless handpicked as an MP and eventually got to become prime minister in 2009. Similarly, spokesperson of Nepal Communist Party Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who lost in 2017 from Gorkha, is now a nominated National Assembly member.
On Gautam, the common feeling, even within the NCP rank and file, is that once you lose a parliamentary election, you should have to wait for five years to be eligible for re-election. As constitutional lawyer Adhikari hinted, nor will it be easy for Gautam to get the two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution in his favor.
Adds NCP’s Karki: “It is not about Gautam. It is a violation of the public mandate to appoint leaders who lost popular elections to the National Assembly, much less clear their path to the country’s top executive post.”

But why have top NCP leaders been seemingly so willing to address his demands? As Gautam is considered an expert manipulator of internal party politics, each of Oli, Nepal and Dahal, the leaders of three NCP factions, wants Gautam’s support to consolidate their power. Gautam’s contemporary UML colleagues like Oli, Nepal, and Jhala Nath Khanal have all gotten the top executive post in the country. Gautam, the oldest of the quartet, perhaps feels time is not on his hands .