Submit your Article

House Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire adjourned Wednesday’s session of Parliament until Monday due to the lack of quorum. Although the Parliament record for the day showed 167 “present attendance”, there were only 61 lawmakers inside the Parliament hall at the time of meeting. The Parliament must have the presence of one-third members (69 lawmakers) to make up the minimum quorum, or else the meeting cannot take place.   This is not the first instance where a Parliament session was canceled due to high absenteeism. It is also not the first case of lawmakers visiting the Parliament only to mark their attendance, so that their remuneration and allowances are not canceled. Many lawmakers make time to attend public events and functions, but when it comes to their main duty, they are often a no-show. Over the past three months, lawmakers were busy with the preparation of working procedures of the House and with the elections of president, prime minister, speaker, deputy speaker, and the prime minister’s vote of confidence. Ideally, the Parliament and its members are supposed to be busy right now, getting on with the core business of lawmaking. There is an urgent need to endorse some crucial bills after thorough screenings by parliamentarians. But there seems to be no sense of urgency on the part of political parties, lawmakers and government. For instance, a bill to amend laws related to prevention of money laundering and promotion of business environment has been registered in Parliament. The bill proposes amending 20 laws related to money laundering. Considering the urgency of matter, the erstwhile government had introduced an ordinance on the same issue, but former President Bidya Devi Bhandari had disapproved it on the grounds of looming elections. Endorsing the bill is crucial because the delay could lead to Nepal being graylisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global anti-money laundering watchdog. Getting gray-listed by the FATF means earning Nepal disrepute for not being financially transparent. It could also affect the country's dealings with international financial institutions. But rather than acting quickly to endorse the bill, the lawmakers are skipping parliamentary meetings. Had they any sense of urgency, they should be exerting pressures on the government to endorse the bill at the earliest. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Similarly, the government has also tabled a bill to amend the transitional justice law. The bill has drawn criticisms from the main opposition, CPN-UML, international community and conflict victims. The government wants to fast-track the bill, but opposition parties and rights activists want intensive consultations and revisions on the proposed amendment bill. Parties are likely to forward the bill to the parliamentary committee for further deliberations, but the committees have not been formed yet. However, lawmakers alone cannot be held responsible for the dismal performance of Parliament. After the promulgation of the new constitution in 2015, the government and leaders of major political parties have paralyzed the House proceedings on various occasions. One of them is the state of constant tussle between the prime minister and House Speaker. Former prime minister KP Sharma Oli and then speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara were often at odds. It was the same between immediate past prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and erstwhile speaker Agni Sapkota. Now, in keeping with the culture, incumbent Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Speaker Ghimire are also likely to feud. Ghimire was elected from the opposition, UML, and there is a growing mistrust between him and Dahal. A few days back, UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli said that a conspiracy was afoot to impeach the Speaker Ghimire. Khim Lal Devkota, a member of National Assembly, points out various reasons behind the dismal performance of Parliament. There is always a lack of coordination and communication between executive and legislature, which is important to make parliamentary activities effective and result-oriented, he says. It is the responsibility of the government to provide businesses to parliament, adds Devkota. In his view, all major political parties including the main opposition should be serious about making the Parliament more vibrant. Experts say political parties are making legislative bodies as their power center and making only those laws that serve their personal interests. The transitional justice amendment bill is a case in point, says former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC. The government wants to get it endorsed without intensive deliberations in the House, which, according to KC, is an act of betrayal against the people. The role of Speaker is also equally important for a smooth functioning of Parliament. The speaker, say experts, should take strong actions against those lawmakers who skip the House sessions without strong reasons. It is also the job of the Speaker to talk with the government and political parties to ensure that the regular business of Parliament takes place without obstructions. Former justice KC says successive governments have shown the tendency of bypassing the Parliament and relying on ordinances to pass new bills. This would not happen if we had a strong parliamentary practice, he adds. To discipline the lawmakers, many countries have a provision of preparing a report card of every parliamentarian, which includes the attendance, activities, and speeches of individual parliamentarians. Similar practice is not followed in Nepal. The Parliament Secretariat only keeps the attendance records of the lawmakers. It has been six months since the current parliament was elected, and over this period, it has not accomplished any notable task.

It has been almost eight years since Nepal adopted a new constitution. In this period, the constitution has been amended twice—first in 2016 to address the concerns of Madhes-based parties, and second in 2020 to update the country’s map incorporating the areas disputed with India. The Madhesi and the Janajati communities are still calling for amendments to the charter in order to address their demands, but without strong political backing and representation in federal parliament, their voices are not being heard. It was widely expected that the 2015 constitution would set Nepal on the course of political stability and economic development. But the political climate so far has only but dashed the public hope for a stable, growing nation. People’s frustration against political parties, especially the old, established forces, has reached a tipping point. Politicians and leaders have paralyzed key state institutions such as the judiciary, legislature, and the president’s office. There is a growing tussle between the Office of the President and Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. Frequent government changes have become a new normal. Nepal has witnessed six governments in seven years. Former chief justice Kalyan Shrestha says all the political dysfunctions and maladies post-2015 are the results of some provisions in the constitution that have cemented heavy political control over state apparatuses. Moreover, he adds, numerous provisions in the constitution including some fundamental rights remain unimplemented. There is a growing demand among some sections of Nepali society and even inside some major political parties for reinstating unitary government system by doing away with federalism. This begs the question: Who is responsible for this situation: the constitution or the political parties? Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari says while the constitution could be reviewed, we must also consider whether we have a favorable situation for constitution amendment. The experience of last eight years shows that the new constitution has been accepted by wider section of society, adds Adhikari. He personally believes that the problem lies with the political parties and their leaders, rather than the constitution. To date, political parties are not fully committed to some of the key spirits of the constitution, such as federalism, fundamental rights and the issue of inclusion. Adhikari says Nepal’s political parties and their leaders are suffering from a bad case of elitism. Instead of finding faults with the constitution, he adds we must ask why the constitution has not been fully implemented. Political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta, however, holds an opposite view to Adhikari. He is in favor of reviewing and amending the constitution. Bhatta says we never had problems with the constitution in the past, but only with the political actors. These days we have more problems with the constitution than with the political actors, he adds. That said, Bhatta also strongly believes in changing our attitude. Nepal’s fundamental problem, he says, is lacking the capacity to honor and uphold constitutional behavior. Of course, no constitution is prefect in itself and they can certainly be improved over time, adds Bhatta, but unlike the past constitution, our political parties and leaders have truly upheld the new constitution. Political parties have developed the tendency of explaining and interpreting the constitutional provisions as per their interests and conveniences, says Bhatta. The final arbiter of the law and the constitution is the Supreme Court. But in Nepal, major political parties have reduced the highest court of the land into their playground. Experts are of the view that on the basis of the experiences of the past eight years, there should be an overall review of the constitution, as parties have failed to implement it to the full. The 2015 statute was a document of compromise among traditional parties and the then Maoist rebels. Soon after its promulgation, political parties and the communities based in Madhes staged protests calling for various demands that were unaddressed. They are still clamoring for constitutional amendments to guarantee them greater rights and representation. But constitution amendment is not an easy job. Unless all major parties are on board, there cannot be any amendment to any provision in the constitution. According to article 274 of the constitution, no amendment shall be made to this constitution in manner to be prejudicial to sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence of Nepal and sovereignty vested in the people. Other clauses of the constitution, however, could be amended. For example, a bill to amend or repeal any article of the constitution may be introduced by either house of the federal parliament. Such a bill should be made public within days of its introduction in the concerned house. Some experts, however, say that constitution amendment at this point of time would be tantamount to opening the Pandora’s box, because there are various forces who want to review the constitution on their own terms. If the amendment process is initiated, they say, it would be difficult to meet the demands of various conflicting groups. For instance, royalist forces like the Rastriya Prajatantra Party are pressing for an amendment to reinstate the Hindu state and constitutional monarchy. Likewise, parties like CPN (Maoist Center) are trying to introduce presidential rule and make changes to the existing electoral system. Expert there are too many contradictory demands that could upend the whole system. Here are the views expressed by former chief justice Kalyan Shrestha, former speaker Daman Nath Dhungana and former law minister Nilambar Acharya at a program organized by Tanka Prasad Acharya Memorial Foundation. ‘Centralized mindset will take us nowhere’  Kalyan Shrestha, Former chief justice Federalism was a point of departure for us, but it is unlikely to succeed. Without a creative roadmap, it is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run. The current federal government is more of a ‘centralized’ government rather than a true federal one, as it aims to retain power at the center and is hesitant to devolve power and resources to subnational governments. The tendency to centralize the law-making process and withhold necessary laws from subnational governments is still prevalent. Selling the concept of centralization as federalism will take us nowhere. Furthermore, political appointees hold the majority in our constitutional bodies. This means whatever they say will be the final decision. The work done so far has not aligned with the spirit of the constitution. The 1990 constitution looked good on paper. The new constitution has several provisions from the old one. Unfortunately, due to the centralized mindset of our political leaders, the situation is deteriorating. ‘PM should not have arbitrary decision-making power’  Nilambar Acharya, Former minister It is imperative to review the process of government formation. Perhaps, only the party that secures electoral majority should be allowed to form a government. We need to establish a philosophical basis for this and clarify the provisions in the constitution. It is also crucial to define the rights of the prime minister who has resigned and the prime minister who has not yet received a vote of confidence. Additionally, we should outline the rights of the prime minister after an election has been announced. The current system, which permits arbitrary decision-making from the prime minister, must be rectified. ‘Parties must have courage to amend constitution’  Daman Nath Dhungana, Former speaker The country has experienced radical changes, but the political parties have struggled to effectively implement them. Despite adopting a new constitution, they have not demonstrated the capacity to work in its spirit. There is a lack of a functional apparatus to govern the state. The parties need to have the courage to pursue constitutional amendments. Rather than solely focusing on contesting elections and gaining state power, they should also have a clear plan for governance. We need a broad national consensus.

My wife and I were having lunch at a friend's some eight years back. The entrée, the usual dal-bhat, with side servings of a mutton dish, cauliflower curry, and chutneys, included a simple spinach preparation.   It was, however, nothing like the typical green leafy vegetables we ate at home, like mustard greens (tori ko sag), garden cress (chamsur), spinach (palungo), fenugreek leaves, or bok choy. It had a marked flavor, somewhere close to our palungo spinach and even a hint of cabbage, but with a sharper, piquant, and earthy flavor. I relished it so much that I went for a large second helping. I did not have the foggiest idea what it was. Upon my curiosity, my friend told me it was bethe ko sag, popular among rural Newars and called ekoncha in Newari. My jaws dropped when he told me it was a wild weed that grew independently and proliferated home gardens, wheat fields, potato crops, fallow fields, and roadsides—free for the picking. That made me a little suspicious about the edibility of the spinach.  Discerning the quizzical look on my face, my friend grinned and assured me it was safe to eat. "No worries, it even holds some medicinal properties," he said. I did not buy it and decided to investigate the matter. It bowled me over when my finds reassured me it was not merely safe to eat, but the wild weed packed a lot of nutrients. The more I buried into my research, the more exciting lowdowns surfaced. Given that the wild herbage thus became a favorite on my shopping list.  History logs that the wild weed existed even in the prehistoric ages when hunters and gatherers foraged this green leafy plant in the backwoods to eat and use as fodder. The botanic name for this weed is Chenopodium Album, a perennial, annual herbaceous plant—a member of the Amaranthaceous family (in the genus Chenopodium). It is fast-growing, resilient, and survives extreme sun, drought, and frost. In Kathmandu, it invades the wheat fields, potato crops, soybean, home gardens, and untilled fields, and being very hardy needs no tending. In a nutshell, mostly neglected, it clusters practically any location, niche, and crevice outdoors. All you have to have is observant eyes.  By and broadly accepted as a pesky nuisance in the garden, it thrives in a temperate and tropical climate. Given that a single bethe plant bears an astronomical quantity of self-sowing seeds, close to 70,000, if not more, it burgeons just like a bushfire.  Botanists claim it served as a food source even in the ancient Chinese civilization and maintained that it was native to Asia and Europe and later introduced to North America, Africa, and Australia. Albeit its wild descent, the plant is cultivated extensively as a food crop in India, particularly in the north, and widely consumed. And what's more, it goes by a horde of names in America and Europe, which sound nothing short of ludicrous such as lamb's quarters, white goosefoot, Missouri lambs quarters, bacon weed, pigweed, and whatnot.  "There are two variety of bethe, one is the local kind and the other deshi (literally from the Terai or India))," says Naren Shrsestha, our greengrocer. "Its seedling time nearly coincides with the planting of palungo spinach. The picking time for the local bethe sag occurs in early spring (March through May) before the wheat crop gets harvested or a little late until mid-fall," he added. The local bethe available in Kathmandu are primarily wild and foraged in the wheat fields and the spring potato crops. "With its growing popularity, farmers in small numbers have started cultivating it in recent times," says Ramchandra, a vegetable vendor in our neighborhood.  Now for the fast check on bethe's nutrients, let's look at the fact sheet below. For good measure, the invasive weed brims over with micronutrients such as potassium,  phosphorus, magnesium, manganese, zinc, flavonoids, and Vitamin K. It is rich in Vitamin C. Surprisingly, the wild weed loads Vitamin A (11,600 IU per 100 grams of leaves) much higher than spinach and about 2.5 times more than kale.  Regarding the health benefits accredited nutritionists and clinical dietitians uphold, the lesser-known bethe greens boost our immunity and help nourish our overall wellness.   Among a wealth of health benefits, let's check on some: 

1. With calcium content to back it up, it helps strengthen our bones and fight against osteoporosis, structural deterioration of bone tissue, and low bone mass (especially among aging women).
2. The flavonoids and copper contents in bethe, essential for a healthy heart, foster the HDL cholesterol, thus, substantially cutting down on the risk of cardiovascular diseases like heart attacks, atherosclerosis, and strokes.  
3. As an excellent glycemic agent, the manganese in bethe greens aids in controlling and stabilizing blood-glucose levels in type-2 diabetes.
4. It fights against toxins in our body caused by prolonged consumption of fruits and veggies contaminated by pesticides and extended use of pharmaceutical drugs like acetaminophen and ibuprofen. It acts as a cleansing agent and helps safeguard the liver. 

1. Recent discoveries maintain the regular intake of bethe even check the growth of cancer cells in breasts, lungs, colon, and esophagus.

The wealth of high-ranking government officials including the prime minister remains one of the best-kept secrets in Nepal. And it is this very nature of secrecy that sometimes gives rise to rumors that they possess wealth beyond their means, or they have large stakes in businesses. Such rumors will continue to circulate so long as the leaders and senior government top brass refuse to disclose their assets while serving in public positions. According to the Anti-Corruption Act 2002, prime minister, ministers, elected representatives and government employees should declare their properties within 60 days of joining office, but most do not. It’s been more than 100 days since Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal came to power, but his office has yet to publish his property details. The website of the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers shows it has received the property details of Dahal and some ministers without going into the particulars. It could be argued that the majority of the members in the Dahal Cabinet have not disclosed their assets because they were appointed only recently. But if the past is anything to go by, they are unlikely to do so. Dahal’s predecessor, Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress, and his Cabinet members had also failed to submit their property details. Although Dahal had declared his properties during his previous term in 2017, he had done so only after intense public pressure. The asset disclosure rule was introduced after the restoration of democracy in 1990 in an effort to promote financial transparency. There are two bodies to look after the property of every person who holds public office: Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and National Vigilance Center (NVC). But they never dare to ask government ministers and senior government officials to furnish their property details. The rule, however, states that failure to disclose property within the extended deadline could result in a fine of up to Rs 5,000 and an investigation into the properties held by the concerned individual. Anti-corruption activists say the anti-graft bodies should show some teeth and investigate the properties of government ministers and high-level officials if they refuse to disclose their assets. They say it is the only way to discourage corruption and financial crimes. As Nepal ranks among one of the most corrupt countries in the world, the need for a powerful anti-corruption agency is all the more necessary. Land grabbing, illegal selling of public land, and amassing of illegal wealth are ever increasing in Nepal, according to the CIAA. There have been cases in which senior ministers, government officials, and their close relatives have been accused of their direct involvement of aiding and abetting such crimes. The Lalita Niwas land-grab incident is one prime example in which the involvement of several politicians and government officials has been suspected. The incident also highlights the serious problem of politician-criminal nexus in the country. But large-scale corruption scandals involving senior government ministers and officials are rarely investigated, let along prosecuted in Nepal. Anti-corruption crusaders and organizations say several top leaders and bureaucrats live the life of unimaginable luxury, which cannot be justified by their income source. Even lawmakers, local and provincial government representatives, and government staff members are reluctant to submit their property details. In the current House of Representatives, eleven members have yet to furnish their property details to the Parliament Secretariat. The parliament members were sworn in on 22 December 2022 and as per rule, they were supposed to disclose their assets by February 19. As per Section 50 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2002, and Section 31 (A) 1 of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Act, individuals holding public positions are required to submit their property details to the respective offices within 60 days of their appointment. Additionally, they are also required to disclose the source of the property mentioned in the property details. According to the Parliament Secretariat, Mohan Bahadur Basnet, Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, Uday Shumsher JBR, Manorama Sherchan, and Tek Bahadur Gurung of Nepali Congress, Rajkumar Gupta and Laxmi Mahato Koiri of CPN-UML, Barshaman Pun of CPN (Maoist Center), Pashupati Shumsher JBR of Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Met Mani Chaudhary of CPN (Unified Socialist), and Mahindra Raya Yadav of Nepal Samajbadi Party have failed to comply with the asset disclosure law. The secretariat is preparing to forward the names of these lawmakers to the NVC with a recommendation to initiate legal action against them. The NVC is the government agency tasked with the responsibility of overseeing whether government employees are furnishing their property details as required by the law. According to the agency, 2.72 percent of government employees and officials did not submit their property details in the fiscal year 2020/21. During the review period, 13,844 federal government employees, 263 provincial governments employees, and 4,064 local government employees did not submit their property statements. In the fiscal year 2019/20, 2.81 percent of government staffers had failed to furnish their property details. In the case where a government staff member fails to furnish his or her property details within the given time frame, the NVC forwards the name of the concerned officer to the CIAA recommending investigation. It is the job of the CIAA to investigate the property of the government officer in question.