Submit your Article

On Oct 21, China and India reached a border agreement with regard to the Ladakh region, marking a departure from 2020, when there was a nasty fight between the two in which many soldiers lost their lives and several others suffered injuries. After that incident, a tense situation persisted between the two countries for about four years. The 2024 deal materialized after four years of military and diplomatic efforts.

After the agreement, India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said the agreement on army patrolling in certain areas had brought the situation back to where it was in 2020, before a deadly border clash. The very next day, Beijing confirmed that the two sides had “reached a solution” following “close communication” on relevant issues of the China-India border through diplomatic and military channels.

A new world order

On the meeting held between PM Modi and President Xi on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan on Oct 20-22, both sides stressed the need for a permanent resolution of border disputes for peace and tranquility for the two countries as well as for the entire region, expecting the detente to contribute to the creation of a new international order.

Per media reports, the troop withdrawal process has already begun and will complete in 10 days, making way for the implementation of other promises made in the agreement. Per the reports, both the leaders agreed, in principle, to resolve outstanding border issues through relentless efforts at diplomatic, political and military levels. The idea is to create a mutually fruitful and advantageous political, military and economic scenario in favor of peace and stability in the region, something which is expected to make way for a multi-polarized world and a new international order.

Friends in deed

India and China are our next-door neighbors, development partners, well-wishers and our friends in need and friends in deed. We are maintaining a very balanced and pragmatic relation with both the neighbors that are militarily strong, economically developed and prosperous, with formidable diplomatic clout. They are supportive of our socioeconomic development and stand for stability in Nepal. If they are in a good tune and in a good understanding it will give a direct and proportional positive impact in our political stability and economic development. We can and should cash and utilize the peace and prosperity dividend from both the countries. We should always stand as a true and trusted friend of both. We should not become unreliable political gamblers and must not play a trump card against each other. If we remain true friends and always care about our national interest, I am sure that the dynamics and dimension of economic support and investment from both the countries will continue to increase. If there will be deep rivalry or enmity or unhealthy competition or a war-like tense situation between India and China, Nepal will definitely suffer from all sides. Thereby this border agreement between two countries is not only good for them but also very good for Nepal too.

A constructive role 

Nepal should always play a very constructive role between the two neighbors and always remain as a link between the two. We should earn political trust and credibility while handling our foreign policy keeping in mind that consistency, clarity and continuity are good qualities of foreign policy. We should be good and dependable friends.

National interest in focus

Our two neighbors have two different ideologies and political systems, so we should maintain a very high degree of political and diplomatic equilibrium while steering our foreign policy. If we accord ideology the topmost priority in our foreign policy, we cannot maintain a good and balanced relationship with our neighbors. This is one of the important issues facing us in our neighborhood policy. The basic elements of our foreign policy should be the protection of national interest, sovereignty and territorial integrity, development and prosperity of the country and multi-engagement policy in the international arena through inclusive democracy. This may be the panacea for protection of the country and for national prosperity and happiness.

Opportunities and blessings

We need capital, technology, an innovative brain and unwavering honesty as well as determination at the political level to make our country happy and prosperous. When Latin Americans or Canadians can profit from the US’ development and prosperity, when Africans and Muslims can benefit from the prosperity of Europe, why can’t we benefit from the development and prosperity of our two neighbors? We should be politically smart and honest, visionary and diplomatically skillful and pragmatic and free from biases against our next-door neighbors to benefit from them.

Views are personal

Concept

The concept of the term ‘Inclusion’ is really very significant, democratic and justice-based in view of contemporary world politics. An affirmative action to eliminate and erase discrimination and oppression based on factors like class, caste (racial), region and gender, this social justice-based concept is recognized by world bodies like the United Nations as well as democratic-progressive political forces around the world.

South Asian scenario

This concept is very popular and resilient in South Asian politics because the aforementioned discrimination and oppression run deep in South Asian societies. Different South Asian countries have introduced a slew of legal provisions for bringing up their marginalized groups into the political mainstream through affirmative action (positive discrimination) resulting from reservation and representation systems. Indian democracy is one of the unique and welcoming examples of this kind.

Indian scenario

India has a long history of reservation system and affirmative action, introduced for mainstreaming of marginalized groups in the State architecture. India’s political history shows that a relatively weak regime of reservation system and affirmative action was in place even during the British rule. In 1979, the Mandal Commission gave some concrete recommendations to strengthen the regime, based on which the Modi 2.0 government further expanded the regime in 2019, ensuring 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections of the general category in educational institutions and government jobs.  At central government-funded higher education institutions in India, 22.5 percent of available seats are for students from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities—7.5 percent for STs and 15 percent for SCs). This reservation percentage has been raised to 49.5 percent by including an additional 27 percent reservation for other backward classes (OBCs).

Nepali scenario

The issue of inclusion got legal and political recognition in Nepal mainly after the peoples’ revolution of the year 2006 through the Interim Parliament and the Interim Constitution of 2007 whereas the Constitution of Nepal 2015 institutionalized it. Articles 42, 50 and 283 of the 2015 Charter have ‘guaranteed’ the rights of marginalized communities for representation (inclusion) in different bodies and organs of the State. While some Acts are already in place for enforcing inclusion, some Bills are under consideration in the Parliament.

The yardstick

Let’s examine the Narendra Modi 3.0 government and the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government through the lens of inclusion. In India, a 72-member Council of Ministers has taken shape under Modi, comprising 30 full Cabinet ministers, six ministers of state with independent charge and 36 ministers of state. Seven of these ministers are women—two Cabinet ministers and five ministers of state, constituting about 10 percent of the Cabinet’s strength. Of the 72 Cabinet members, 42 are from marginalized communities (accounting for around 58 percent representation of the Cabinet) and 27 from OBCs, comprising 37.5 percent of the Cabinet. Five are from STs, comprising around 7 percent of the Cabinet and 10 are from SCs, accounting for about 14 percent of the Cabinet. 

Nepal’s Council of Ministers has 23 members—22 full Cabinet members and one Minister of State.

Gender-wise, five of the 23 members are women—two from Janajati communities and one each from Khas-Arya 1, Madhesi and Muslim communities—accounting, roughly, for 22 percent of the Cabinet. 

Ethnicity-wise, 11 of the 23 Cabinet members are from the Khas-Arya (ruling) community, constituting around 48 percent of the Cabinet, seven from Janjati communities (30 percent of the Cabinet) and four from Madhesi communities (around 17 percent) and one from the Muslim community (around 4 percent of the Cabinet). Notably, there’s no Dalit representation in the Cabinet.

Takeaways

Drawing a comparison between the two cabinets, we can say without hesitation that India’s Cabinet is more inclusive than Nepal’s. Members of marginalized communities account for more than half of the Indian Cabinet’s strength (58 percent), with all legally-recognized marginalized groups represented.

In the case of Nepal, there’s no Dalit representation in the Cabinet, which is totally unjust and inappropriate as well as politically and legally objectionable. Representation of Madhesi communities and women representation is quite low whereas the representation of the Khas-Arya community (the ruling caste group) is pretty high.

This, despite very positive and encouraging constitutional provisions vis-a-vis inclusion, thanks to a lack of full implementation of relevant provisions and political commitments. The Constitution talks about discrimination and oppression on the bases of class, caste (ethnicity), region and gender and envisages legal remedies for ensuring justice and equality. Top leadership of different political parties should have the will to implement relevant constitutional provisions and their own commitments to do away with discrimination and oppression.

Way forward 

World bodies like the United Nations have incorporated this important agenda in their policies, programs and actions. Moreover, discrimination and oppression is a political as well as a social agenda of class societies in general and multidimensional societies in particular. In today’s world, no political force can ignore or reject this agenda as it has gone global. It can be a source of conflict as well as a source of peace, harmony and social stability. The time has come for Nepal’s political leadership to choose between social conflict and social harmony. Time has come for our leadership to truly internalize the agenda and work for the protection of inclusive democracy and maintenance of peace, stability and social harmony in the country.

[email protected] 

There was a huge hue and cry and hot debates as well as sharp allegations and counter-allegations among the political parties with regard to the huge fund embezzlement through different co-operatives for the personal gain of some swindlers. Thousands of Nepali citizens had deposited their hard-earned money in different cooperatives for rainy days. But when they knew that their deposits were embezzled, they hit the streets demanding the return of their deposits and legal action against the culprits. Some culprits have been caught, some have been absconding, while some others have been walking freely by misusing the state power.

Who raised the issue?

The Nepali Congress, with support from some other parties, strongly raised this issue in the parliament and on the streets. For almost three months, they obstructed the parliament demanding the formation of a broad-based parliamentary committee to probe the scam and suggest ways to recoup the deposits, recommend action against the culprits and resolve the crisis facing the co-operatives.

Probe panel

After long and painful days, obstructions and scuffles, verbal allegations and counter-allegations between the ruling and opposition parties, a seven-member parliamentary investigation committee (PIC) took shape with a concrete Terms of Reference (ToR). The committee will recommend ways to improve the overall condition of the cooperatives by conducting an in-depth study, focusing particularly on 20 crisis-ridden cooperatives, list those cooperatives, which financed the Gorkha Private Media Network using the depositors’ hard-earned savings, apart from the individuals, including the office-bearers, responsible for the scam. Let us hope that this committee delivers.

Political strategy

But this is only one side of the coin. The other vital and interesting side is the role and the strategy of the three big parties in this whole gamut. The main political strategy of the Nepali Congress was to win the depositors’ minds and support by raising and supporting their issues on the one hand, and weakening and—if possible—to break the coalition government and topple it. Whereas the desired end of the CPN-UML’s strategy was to drag the country toward mid-term polls by keeping the ruling coalition intact. 

For this, the strategy intended to bring the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) to its fold, create a rift between the NC and the ruling CPN (Maoist Center) as well as between the NC and the RSP.  

The strategy of the Prime Minister in particular and his party—the CPN (Maoist Center)—in general was to create an environment of mistrust between the NC and the UML, and position himself  as a mediator between the two big parties.

Who gained, who lost?

Let us re-examine the strategies. The NC made a compromise and moved one step back, making it partially successful with the realization of its core demand—the formation of a parliamentary investigation committee. On the downside, the party could neither make mention of Rabi Lamichhane in the TOR nor could it break the ruling coalition. The UML is happy as the party managed to get the support of Lamichhane, the chair of the fourth largest party in the parliament, and keep the ruling coalition intact. The Prime Minister is happy and satisfied as he proved himself to be a successful mediator, saved his government and widened the rift between the NC and the UML. All in all, it was a win-win scenario for all principal actors.

Merits of TOR

Now, let us talk about the TOR of the PIC. The TOR is generally good and positive as it is touching upon the core issues, problems and challenges facing the cooperatives. There is sufficient ground to believe that it will be able to drag out the crisis-ridden cooperatives from the vicious circle of mismanagement and mis-appropriation. For this to happen, though, the PIC should work independently and fairly on the basis of facts and figures. It should rise above a partisan outlook and work in the best interest of the country and the people by giving concrete recommendations vis-a-vis the crises-ridden cooperatives. The core issue is the depositors’ funds siphoned off to Gorkha Media Network and its embezzlement. What amount went to the network, who all are the cooperatives and individuals involved in this scam and what is the current status of this scam? The committee should bring out the facts without fear or partiality. The probe committee should keep in mind that the whole country is following the developments very seriously and carefully. The cooperatives’ victims are even more careful and alert, so the relevant actors should be honest, performance-oriented and accountable to the people.

Duty of stakeholders

Media outlets, intellectuals, opinion-makers and even politicians should provide their full and unconditional support to the investigation process. The PIC must complete its task within the given timeframe as any delay in the probe process is likely to invite conflict and confrontation with the victims staging street-based protests, giving rise to law and order issues and contributing further to political instability.

Duty of PIC

The onus is on the PIC to understand and internalize the gravity and dynamics of the issue. The political parties and the government should also take this issue very seriously because innocent Nepali citizens are furious after losing savings totaling billions of rupees. It is a genuine issue of the people and all relevant quarters should address it properly and steadfastly. 

[email protected]

Of late, a very intense and interesting discourse is taking place in Nepal among the intellectuals, academicians and politicians over the present electoral system in general and the proportional representation (PR) system in particular. Some intellectuals and politicians associated with big political parties are arguing against the present PR system by portraying it as a ‘main cause’ of frequent changes in government. They are trying to spread the message that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system is the only way to ensure stable governance in the country. But their line of argument is scientifically and democratically unjustified, incorrect and against the concept of inclusive democracy, something which our Constitution has upheld.

The context: Before the introduction of a mixed electoral system, Nepal was practicing the FPTP system. After decades-long practice, the country opted for a mixed electoral system to minimize the demerits of the FPTP system, mainly in view of the role of money, muscles and caste factors in the elections. Inclusivity or mainstreaming of marginalized communities, groups and regions, a mandate of the 12-point understanding signed between the then Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoist rebels in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) signed in 2006, the Interim Constitution and TOR documents of the ‘revolution’, was another factor behind a switch to the mixed system.

Discourse during statute-drafting: As a member of the then Constituent Assembly (CA) and one of the active members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, let me recall that there was a hot debate and interactive discussion on the electoral system, and a general agreement in the end that continuing with the FPTP system as the sole electoral system was neither possible nor appropriate. So, the main focus and stress was on the ratio of FPTP and the PR system, though some members sought the FPTP system while some others sought the PR system and not a mix of both. Initially, the PR percentage was 60, which was reduced to 40 percent in the present Constitution.

Positions of political parties: Back then, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were for giving more weightage to the FPTP system, whereas the Maoists and Madhes-based parties were for giving more weightage to the PR system. With different arguments and counter-arguments coming, it was a very hot, hard and sometimes unfriendly conversation.

A compromise formula: The present mixed system is a compromise between two schools of thoughts, a marriage between modernity and traditionality, that is, a marriage between inclusive and participatory democracy, and formal democracy (representing a handful of people). Back then, the electoral system was one of the core issues of contention and it was resolved at the last moment of Constitution promulgation.

Causes of instability: The politicians rooting for the elimination of the PR system are trying to convince the people that the PR system is the main cause behind a frequent change of guard. But does this logic hold water? In fact, it’s a false statement and a false premise as the history of governance in Nepal shows along with the history of other countries with similar experiences. 

Let’s look at the contemporary history of Nepal to shed more light on this topic. 

In the general elections held after the restoration of multiparty democracy with constitutional monarchy in 1990 under the FPTP system, the Nepali Congress won a resounding mandate to form a government. But his government collapsed in July 1994, barely three years after its formation as it failed to get a vote in the Parliament regarding the budget, pushing the country into midterm elections. 

History repeated itself as the KP Sharma Oli-led majority government, installed on the basis of the mixed electoral system and supposed to rule for a full five years, collapsed toward the end of July, 2016, hardly nine months after its formation, following the breakup of the coalition.

These examples show that the electoral system has not much to do with the stability of a government or a lack thereof. Rather, stability or instability is a political issue, not necessarily a function of the electoral system. It has more to do with factors like the political leadership of the day, government’s performance and good governance and far less to do with the electoral system. 

The perils and the way forward: Calls for doing away with the mixed system are coming from some short-sighted leaders of big political parties. The ongoing debate over the electoral system is welcome, but the prescription for doing away with the PR system is extremely bad.

Doing away with the PR system, especially with regard to the elections for the House of Representatives, may be counterproductive and may cause political conflict and instability because it is an emotive issue connected with inclusivity and mainstreaming in a multicultural, multiracial, multilingual and multi-geographic country whether class, race, region and gender-related oppression and discrimination persist, among others. An inclusive state is the demand of the time and so is an  inclusive Parliament. Therefore, the PR system must continue. However, it is very important to eliminate the role of money and favoritism in the selection of candidates under the PR system, for which serious discussions are necessary. 

Views are personal. The author can be reached at [email protected]

During the drafting of the Constitution of Nepal, there was a comprehensive debate about what should be the substance and structure of the National Assembly of the Federal Parliament. That time, there were two schools of thought. One opinion was that the National Assembly should be the subsidiary or subordinate to the House of Representative (Lower House). But the second opinion was fundamentally different. The second opinion was that the National Assembly must be powerful, inclusive and of good quality. But numerically, the first opinion had the majority. So finally, the National Assembly was created in line with the first opinion. Hence our National Assembly was constitutionally made weak and subordinate to the Lower House. Same people have/had the control and influence in Lower House right after Constitution promulgation in two big parties in Nepal. So, they made the National Assembly deliberately weak legally too and made it subordinate to the Lower House while drafting the House Regulations.

When we look upon the content and structure of the Upper House in India, UK and other bi-cameral Houses, we see that the making and breaking of the government is the sole right and responsibility of the Lower House. Presentation of fiscal budget (Finance Bill) is also always done in the Lower House. These two rights, everywhere, are exclusively always reserved for the Lower House. But except these two, all other rights and responsibilities are almost equally divided between the two Houses. This world standard, though, does not comply or match in the context of Nepal. Our Federal Parliament was exclusively made with the main focus on the Lower House and it was deliberate and intentional.

In India, legislative, executive, judicial, electoral, amendment rights and even some special powers were constitutionally given to the Upper House. India is a model of how the Upper House is functioning in a parliamentary democratic country.  In the UK, the Upper House scrutinizes legislation, holds the government to account, and considers and reports upon public policy. Peers may also seek to introduce legislation or propose amendments to Bills.

Where are the faults and weaknesses?

 In Constitution:  Article 111 of the present Constitution creates discrimination and inequality between the two Houses with regard to passing the Bills.

Basically, sub-article (2), (4), (5) and (10) are discriminatory. Sub-article (2) only gives 15 days’ mandatory time to the National Assembly for discussion and sending it back to the Lower House with regard to the Finance Bill.

Sub-article (4) gives the discretionary right to the Lower House and says if the National Assembly does not send it back to the Lower House within 15 days, the Lower House can send this Bill to the Head of State for authentication.

Sub-article (5) gives mandatory two months to the National Assembly to send it back to the Lower House in case of all other normal Bills passed by the Lower House. But it is not vice-versa. Here, the Lower House has the monopoly. The Lower House does not have a time limit. It is an extremely discriminatory provision for the National Assembly.

Sub-article (10) also gives the upper hand to the Lower House. It says if any Bill is under consideration in any House and the Lower House has dissolved or ended its tenure, the Bill will be passive. These are the discriminatory provisions in the Constitution, which need immediate amendment.

Faults and discrimination in the regulation: Clause (6) of the Joint Regulation of the Federal Parliament says that the Speaker will preside over the meetings of the joint House. The Chairman of the National Assembly can only preside over the session if the Speaker is absent. This is not respectful and just to the National Assembly’s Chair. It has to be turn by turn.

Clause (25) of the Joint Regulation is also extremely discriminatory and unjust. It is about the Parliamentary Hearing Committee. There is the provision of a 15-member Committee. There are 12 members from the Lower House and only 3 members from the National Assembly. This is not fair, not representative, not inclusive and undermines the respect, dignity and image of the National Assembly. There has to be at least 5 members from the National Assembly.

 There are two Joint Committees in the Federal Parliament. One is the Parliamentary Hearing Committee and the other is the State’s Directive Principles, Policies and Liability Implementation, Supervision and Evaluation Committee. In eight years of Constitution implementation, members of the National Assembly never got a chance to become the Chair of either committee. This is also a discrimination and domination of the Lower House.

Sub-clause 33(4) of the same regulation is also not fair. It states about the number-ratio of other Joint Committees. The ratio is 1:5—one from the National Assembly but five from the Lower House. The point is that the ratio is unjust.

Sub-clause (44) of the same regulation is also unfair and dominating. It says that, whatever mentioned in the Joint Regulation, all activities take place accordingly. But whatever is not mentioned, will be done as per the provision of Lower House’s Regulation. This has established the supremacy of the Lower House over the National Assembly.

First and foremost, the mindset of political leadership, government and media should be changed in regard to the National Assembly. They do not pay much attention and importance to the National Assembly. The reason is that it has no role in making or breaking a government. They have only a little knowledge about the role and responsibilities of the Upper Houses of other countries. Parties are also sending cadres to the National Assembly, who are less qualified and less competent.

In conclusion, Nepal's National Assembly faces challenges rooted in its constitutional framework and parliamentary regulations, leading to a subordinate status compared to the Lower House. Discriminatory provisions in the Constitution and Joint Regulation undermine the role and representation of the National Assembly. To address these issues, there's a need for constitutional amendments to ensure equality between the two houses and a shift in mindset among political leaders, government, and media to recognize and respect the importance of the National Assembly in the country's governance. This would promote a more balanced and effective bicameral system in Nepal. Hence to make our National Assembly more powerful, inclusive, democratic, effective and of better quality and of world standards, we have to amend the Constitution, change the House Regulations as well as the mindset. 

An investment-friendly political and socio-economic environment is urgently needed in today’s Nepal. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and national private investors must be encouraged and supported by the friendly policies and programs of the Nepal government. Such policies and programs are necessary to increase the pace of economic development, achieve relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and create concrete economic grounds for graduation from the LDC status in the year 2026. There is a high potential and possibility for such an investment-friendly atmosphere in Nepal. The lack of political willpower, interest, honesty and clear-cut policies and implementation programs are preventing the creation of such an atmosphere.

FDI flow in S Asia

Nepal is in the sixth position in South Asia regarding FDI inflow, just above Bhutan, according to World Bank data for 2022. FDI inflow was just $65m in 2022 Nepal, which is a 0.15 FDI-GDP ratio. The Maldives is on the top, having $722m in 2022, and the FDI-GDP ratio is 11.7. India was second, and Bangladesh was fourth that year. Bangladesh had $3,480m with a 0.75 FDI-GDP ratio in 2022, whereas India had $49,355m with a 1.44 FDI-GDP ratio in the same year. The 2024 data show India received $105.23bn whereas China received just $70.23bn.

According to the same source, net FDI inflows to Nepal decreased by 4.9 percent to Rs 60bn in 2021-22. There is a significant gap between approved FDI and actual net FDI inflows in Nepal. Between 1995-96 and 2021-22, the total net FDI inflow stood at around 36.2 percent of total FDI approval. This is one of the weighty matters of concern for Nepal.

Vietnam and Cambodia

According to Vietnam’s Foreign Trade Agency, the country experienced a surge in FDI in January and February of 2024, recording an influx of over $4.29bn, marking a significant increase of 38.6 percent compared to the previous year. The major areas of FDI investment are Manufacturing, Services, Agriculture and Travel.

Cambodia’s FDI registered a growth of 12.1 percent of the country’s nominal GDP in Dec 2022, while it stood at 12.9 percent in the previous year. The significant areas of FDI investment in Cambodia are agro-processing, electronics/machinery, health, industrial parts, infrastructure and green energy.

Nepal’s failure

Some of the reasons behind Nepal’s failure to attract FDI are as follows:

Legal hurdles: Some Acts and Regulations responsible for this need to be immediately amended. For example, government itself has said Industrial Enterprise Act 2020, Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act 2019, Special Economic Zone Act 2016, Forest Act -2019, National Parks and Wildlife Protection Act 1973, Land Act 1964, Land Acquisition Act 1977, Environment Protection Act 2019, Electronic Transaction Act 2008, Civil Aviation Act 1959, Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Regulation 2021 and Forest Regulation 2023 need to be revised. Also, some new Acts are needed to encourage the investors with mutual advantages and benefits with clear-cut policies from the point of license receiving to total facilities and support to be given and remittances (dividend) for return.

Bureaucratic hurdles: Bribery, corruption and red-tape are the main hurdles here. Whether national or foreign investors, this is their main complaint and grievance. Our legal and executive decisions and discipline should be such that they penalize and discourage the corrupt actors.

Political hurdle: We should be very fair and impartial, and it will be unfair to blame the bureaucrats alone. Our political circle is also tainted. Our politicians, bureaucrats and brokers have some kind of nexus through which they engage in corrupt practices and discourage investors. So, concerned government authorities and relevant agencies should pay attention here, and the culprits must be brought to justice.

Instability: Lack of political instability, marked by frequent changes in government, is one of the important reasons behind the failure to attract FDI in Nepal. Investors want political stability and policy consistency, and they hardly invest in politically-unstable countries. The political parties of Nepal must pay serious attention to this matter.

Facilities and taxation: FDI calls for a clear-cut taxation policy that is congenial to them and that provides information to them about facilities they are entitled to in a transparent manner. Our taxation policy should be distinctly clear and investment-friendly. We should provide them with all basic facilities that good plants and industries need. Why should we not offer them a special industrial zone like other countries by taking a cue from this saying: Facilities attract and invite capital and capitalists?

Trade union and exit plan: The FDI needs a transparent, solid, stable and investment-friendly labor policy. Foreign investors do not accept workers’ strikes and other forms of disturbances in the industries. They do not accept politics and politically-motivated activities within industrial areas. Does the government have a political will to address these concerns? Foreign investors are also very much concerned about their exit plans. They want to take their profit safely and smoothly back to their countries. They are also apprehensive about the principal amount they invest in. Our legal system, executive decisions and practices should be amicable and supportive of their exit plan.

Proposed areas: Our priority and proposed area must be clear and solid to attract FDI. As per the need and potential of Nepal, agriculture, tourism, hydro, connectivity, education, health, IT, and agro and forest-based industries are the appropriate areas for FDI investment in Nepal.

Learning lessons: In-depth studies are necessary to find the reasons behind Nepal’s failure to attract FDI. Serious studies of countries that have managed to bring in FDI big time, especially on the facilities and incentives they provide to foreign investors,  can show Nepal the way forward when it comes to attracting FDI. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, Nepal urgently requires a conducive environment for investment to accelerate economic growth and achieve SDGs. Legal, bureaucratic and political hurdles, along with instability and unclear policies, deter FDI inflows. To address this, Nepal must enact investor-friendly laws, combat corruption, ensure political stability, offer transparent taxation policies, provide facilities and address labor issues. Learning from successful FDI attractors like India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia, Nepal should focus on sectors like agriculture, tourism, hydro, connectivity, education, health, IT and agroforestry, at a time when the country is gearing up to organize the Third Investment Summit.

The current political landscape presents myriad challenges and complexities. Each day, scores of young individuals depart the country in pursuit of employment and education opportunities elsewhere. There is widespread discontent with the prevailing socio-economic conditions and governance. Citizens grapple with soaring market prices, unemployment, shortages of essential goods, and enduring issues of governance inefficiency. They encounter bribery and favoritism as pervasive barriers to accessing basic services across government offices, corporations, and banks. This pervasive corruption fosters dissatisfaction, discontent, and resentment towards the government and political parties.

In light of these challenges, the fundamental question arises: What is the path forward? What do citizens seek, and how can their needs be addressed? Primarily, people yearn for effective governance, characterized by the eradication of corruption, accountability for wrongdoers, streamlined service provision devoid of bribery, domestic employment opportunities, and accessible quality education. These aspirations form the bedrock of public expectations, yet realizing them poses a significant challenge.

On corruption and good governance

To control, minimize, and abolish the corruption in the country, the government needs the political willpower. And the parties' leadership. The govt., parties, and bureaucratic leadership must be seen as clean and bold to fight against the menace of corruption. No tickets to corrupt leaders or cadres in the election and no party promotion: This principle must be applied. The corrupt people must be filtered from below.

In Nepal, civil servants are divided along the party lines and are doing pure politics with the State’s salary. It is objectionable and inappropriate. It must be stopped. We do not find such a situation anywhere in the world. The political parties must review it and find a national consensus on it.

On CIAA 

Though there are a lot of limitations and constraints, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is doing well in controlling corruption in the country. However, there is a need to bring some concrete reform and change. This institution must be free from political intervention, and there is a need to restructure the composition and bring change in the selection process of commissioners. Only then will the work of this Institution be effective and result-oriented.

On CIB and other investigating agencies 

Our police investigating agencies are very skilled, effective, and performance-oriented in South Asia. The work of these agencies is highly appreciated and recognized by the regional and international police investigating agencies. The Nepali people also have a positive impression of it. However, there are always setbacks when political interventions are made. Political intervention is always made ineffective and resultless to the work performed by the agencies. So, there must be no political intervention in the crime investigation process to control corruption and punish the culprits.

On service delivery

The general people are indifferent to party politics and pay attention to their daily needs and concerns. They are susceptible to and care about service delivery issues. They always compare the Panchayat system with the multiparty and present Federal Democratic Republican system. They say that they do not find new and optimistic scenarios at present. Their impression of service delivery is even worse in the present situation. They say that without bribery or approach or caste, linguistic, and regional relations, receiving service is almost impossible anywhere in government or semi-government offices. Scenarios are the same in banks (basically for getting loans) and other corporation offices. So, what should the government do here?

The government must send concrete, clear, and circular solid notices to all service delivery offices to perform their duties promptly and adequately without delay, bribes, and approach. Otherwise, it should be punished. The home ministry, related ministries, and the prime minister’s office should be vigilant and alert so that the people can realize and see the positive change in service delivery.

On unemployment

The government should have a clear-cut vision of employment generation. Employment can be generated through State, semi-state, private, and FDI sectors. There should be an investment-friendly environment in the country. All legal, political, administrative, technical, and practical barriers should be removed in a basket decision as soon as possible. Those who are obstacles in this process should be punished. All economic activities, whether big or small, should be encouraged.

On education

Education and health have a massive potential in our country. We can make it a hub in South Asia. Our national and foreign investors are eager to invest in this area. Nepali parents are very supportive and cooperative in providing their children a quality education in Nepal. They are heartily spending money on it. The Indians have money and they are eager to send their children to Nepal for quality and cheap education. They also like Nepali weather very much. So, we have the service seeker as well as the investors too.

The only thing is the government should be supportive. We should have an apparent education policy and program and a very supportive policy and attitude for the investors.

In conclusion, meeting the aspirations of the populace necessitates a concerted effort to combat corruption, enhance service delivery, generate employment, and improve education accessibility. Collaboration between government, political parties, and citizens is essential in realizing these goals and building a more prosperous and equitable society. Through sustained dedication and collaborative action, tangible progress can be achieved towards creating a brighter future for all.

The present political scenario of Nepal is very much challenging and unpredictable. Nepali Congress (NC) was dethroned from the government in a very dramatic and unanticipated move as per the design of KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Naturally, NC is in a highly ferocious and revenge-taking mood and hence watching and waiting for the opportune moment to retaliate while CPN-UML chair Oli and the party is in a very happy and victorious mood. They think they have won a very difficult war. Madhav Kumar Nepal and his party, though a part of the government, are confused—they don’t know whether joining the government was a right decision. 

Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) is happy and satisfied after getting important berths and good representation in the government. Madhes-based parties are divided and they are fighting among themselves as enemies and not just as competitors. Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) seems deeply annoyed and indignant for her isolation in the whole making and breaking process. Some power centers are very much happy while some are extremely sad. People are eagerly waiting for good governance, service delivery, job and political stability.

The question now is how the situation moves ahead? RPP and some Hinduvadi (pro-Hindu) forces are talking about street protests and have announced some slogans and programs for this purpose after submitting a memorandum consisting of their demands to the prime minister. In my opinion, they will try their level best to cash in on the situation and destabilize the whole scenario to create an atmosphere for effecting changes in the Constitution. For this purpose, they are likely to continue with their efforts to garner the sympathy and support of all those forces who are against the present government and coalition. Some power centers may extend their support to those who are not happy with the present coalition.

Now the question is what will be the tactics and strategy of NC? Will the party extend any kind of sympathy or support directly or indirectly to the street protestors? As a true parliamentary democrat, will it instead play the role of a strong and constructive opposition inside and outside the parliament? Presently, the party is blocking the House session and demanding the resignation of the Home Minister accusing him of involvement in a Cooperative Scam. The House is tense and anything can happen.

Madhav Nepal’s party is also not in order and seems to have a high degree of dissatisfaction and grudges inside. Nobody can predict what will happen at that party. There are two distinct political trends in that party. One trend is for left unity and the other for left and democratic unity. Madhav Nepal is suffering from the policy of indecisiveness and confusion.

Hence the present coalition seems very fragile. Hostilities between the present coalition and the main opposition party, Nepali Congress, is increasing and there is a risk that competition between the two may transform into enmity. If such a political situation arises, it may injure and damage the democratic course. It may weaken or retard the constitutional process and ultimately encourage and strengthen the revivalist forces.

Confrontation or long indecisiveness will create political instability and hence chaos and uncertainty in the country. It is not good for a smooth political and economic development of the country. 

Nepal needs political stability and people need good governance, service delivery, jobs and social peace.

The present government should focus on people’s daily life and their needs as well as their aspiration of a corruption-free country and a job-creating economy. If the government cannot deliver and bring stability and win hearts and minds, it does not have political or moral rights to govern. And the duty of the opposition in parliamentary democracy is to raise the plight and hardships of the common people in the parliament, focus on national issues and stand for political stability and economic development of the country.

In my opinion, the present political and economic situation of the country is very challenging, which should be the agenda of all political forces despite their different political places. Some political forces are challenging and questioning the federal democratic republican and secular fabric of the Constitution. So, there should be some level of understanding among the pro-Constitution forces.

The national economy is in poor shape. Capital expenditure is not increasing, public revenue is not satisfactory, mass-migration of young people is ongoing, market is suffering from depression, business activities are slowing down, jobs are hard to find, industrial activities are declining, people’s purchasing power is decreasing, there is crisis in the farm sector and the economy is mainly dependent on remittances and loans. Such a scenario may cause a Sri Lanka-type crisis anytime. Hence for political stability, for the protection of the Constitution and for overcoming the economic crisis, major political forces of the country should reach a political understanding and consensus.

Views are personal