Submit your Article

More than a decade ago, it would be news when coffins arrived at Tribhuvan International Airport on the cargo hold of airliners, bearing migrant workers who had died in the Gulf or Malaysia. The plywood boxes would be carried by grieving relatives to Aryaghat, the bodies in plastic sheeting unwrapped for cremation.

The numbers escalated from the occasional coffin to two, three, then several a day. As the far-flung regions also started sending out migrants, the returning bodies had to be taken for cremation or burial to the home villages. Even as the returning dead stopped making news, a transport industry sprang to provide delivery service from TIA.

The Red Suitcase is a film of short dialogues and long silences, tracing the journey of one driver (Saugat Malla) on his Bolero pick-up as he picks up a body and carries it along the Sindhuli Highway and scenic backroads to deliver it to the village of Beyul.

Among the many fascinating elements in the film is the choice of name for the hamlet. In the Himalayan Buddhist belief system, ‘beyul’ is a valley of refuge for those escaping sectarian strife, political subjugation or failed crops. Here Beyul is an idyll of a bhitri madhes village, and the Bolero breaks the peace as it arrives, spewing diesel and churning up the gravel, arriving at the house kept by a young mother (Shristi Shrestha) and her newborn infant.

Along the way, Saugat’s character meets a disabled veteran of the Indian Gorkha battalion (Bipin Karki), who served and was wounded in Kashmir. A bitter man, he lives alone in a roadside hut in whose driveway the pick-up parks for the night. We learn that the driver fled his village after his beloved school-teacher was murdered by insurgents. Seeking survival in the metropolis, he ends up as the chauffeur of last journeys.

Between sips of raksi, the conversation between the demobilized soldier and the driver encapsulates the concerns of the times: a polity that forces its youth outward, a nation-state which sends its citizens to fight for another country, and a rural society devastated by internal conflict. But nothing is overplayed in writer-director Fidel Devkota’s expert script and cinematography.

Two spectral episodes bracket the story of the traveling coffin, one involving the wife and another the Bolero sarathi. These are best left for the reader to observe and reach an understanding at the cinema hall.

Whether you are carried away by the story of The Red Suitcase or not depends on your mental conditioning as regards the emptying villages of Nepal, including Beyul where only the women are left to tend the homesteads. The extended silences in darkness and half-shadows allow for reflection on the fate of the characters, and what happened to their resource-rich country.

In the screening this writer attended, a few in the audience were clearly uncomfortable with Devkota’s technique. At the half-time break, some giggled self-consciously and a man asked someone in the next row, ‘Ae bhatija, nidaeko ho?!’ But by the time the end credits came up, he had gone pensive as had others in the hall.

As an aside, perhaps The Red Suitcase can sensitize the Department of Civil  Aviation to provide a more dignified arrival for the migrant dead at TIA. While the earlier practice of the coffins emerging into the regular baggage collection area has ended, the Department must customize special pushcarts for transport to where the grieving families await. Till today, relatives have to lay the coffins sideways across two regular airport trolleys and awkwardly push them in tandem.

The Red Suitcase, meanwhile, does its bit to provide respect to the dead and living. At the village Beyul, the newborn’s name, Asha, holds out the possibility of a better tomorrow.

Don McLain Gill is a geopolitical analyst, author, and lecturer at the Department of International Studies, De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines. Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talked with him about the changing geopolitical situation and regionalism. 

How do you see the history of regionalism in South Asia?

Following the Second World War, there has been a significant shift toward the formulation of trade and inter-state relations. As a result, states became eager for a new model that would not only promote and expand trade but would also contribute to peace by establishing international cooperative agreements and institutions to support them. Since the 1960s, there has been a noteworthy increase in regional cooperative projects all over the world. This pushed the developing world to explore the possibilities and opportunities of regional cooperation. However, it was important for states to recognize certain requirements in order to forge an effective regional group. One of these requirements was the need to look outward and limit self-centered interests that may hinder collective goals. However, this seems to be easier said than done, given the variation in every state’s history and priority, which may conflict with regional priorities.

Like elsewhere, the concept of regional cooperation gained attraction and acceptance in South Asia. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985 to enhance and promote intra-regional trade and economic cooperation. Later, South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) was signed in 1993. This was then followed by the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) agreement, which came into effect in 2006. However, Despite the enthusiasm brought by the spread of regional cooperation, the results have not been entirely praiseworthy.

While talking about regionalism in this area, SAARC obviously comes at the forefront, but it is in a state of limbo.  Do you see any chance of SAARC’s revival?

 It is crucial to understand that each region consists of its own dynamics and characteristics. Both external and internal factors must be taken into consideration when evaluating the success and effectiveness of regional cooperation. South Asian states have similar geographical, cultural, and societal features that are supposed to create a conducive environment for effective cooperation. Nevertheless, despite such advantageous factors, South Asia is one of the least integrated regions in the world. This can be attributed to both economic and non-economic factors ranging from tariff and non-tariff barriers and lack of comparative advantage to physical connectivity, divergent threat perceptions, and asymmetric power relations. 

Moreover, the evident historic dilemma between India and Pakistan poses a critical challenge for SAARC’s revival. Most especially since Pakistan’s consistent support for terror activities throughout the region serves as a major impediment to attaining a conducive environment for regional growth and cooperation. Moreover, Pakistan’s desire to involve extra-regional powers like China to undermine India’s territorial integrity, security, and sovereignty presents a deep-rooted challenge for the regional organization to come out of.

Can BIMSTEC become an alternative to SAARC?

With the rise of the Indo-Pacific construct, South Asia has become a sub-region to a greater Indo-Pacific. This creates more opportunities for South Asian states to expand the scope and boundaries of cooperation beyond the immediate neighborhood and into the other subregions of the Indo-Pacific. Thus, the utility of interregional frameworks like BIMSTEC must be maximized by its members to explore more opportunities for economic and security cooperation amidst the deadlock faced in SAARC. 

BIMSTEC serves as an important sub-regional arrangement where both South and Southeast Asian states can diversify and strengthen alternative economic options at a time when the Indo-Pacific is facing critical shifts brought by the unfolding US-China power competition. This provides an opportunity for BIMSTEC to regain its significance, given the vital economic and security linkages between Bay of Bengal and the Western Pacific. For South Asian states, this presents an important avenue to offset the strategic losses faced from SAARC and reinvest in alternative inter-regional platforms such as BIMSTEC.

Can countries of this region consider creating another regional bloc?

I believe it is unlikely for South Asian states to devote resources again to establish another regional organization. This contradicts the emerging trend in the Indo-Pacific of forging loose and area-specific arrangements between states that share common interests, concerns, and goals. Such arrangements can be in the form of minilateral groupings. I believe there is more potential for like-minded South Asian states to cooperate on key issue areas of mutual interest and concern through such a framework rather than reinvesting in traditional forms of regional cooperation.

Why did South East Asia succeed in embracing a robust regional body like ASEAN, but South Asia failed to do so?

ASEAN and SAARC are two regional organizations that were formed during the Cold War Era amidst the emerging trend toward regionalism and regional economic cooperation. However, ASEAN's function as a regional bloc is far more successful than that of SAARC. While the former is often considered as the benchmark for regional cooperation in the developing world, the latter is known for being the least integrated region in the world. There are several reasons behind this vast operational gap. Unlike SAARC, ASEAN has invested in enhancing connectivity projects between its member countries. Moreover, ASEAN’s intra-regional trade, despite its limitations, remains quite praiseworthy at 25 percent compared to SAARC, which is barely at five percent. 

However, aside from economic evaluations, it is more important to highlight the geopolitical differences between both organizations. Unlike ASEAN, the power dynamics in SAARC is far more asymmetrical. Moreover, the intersectional historical, cultural, and political dynamics of SAARC members are also significantly different from ASEAN members. The nature of protracted intra-regional conflicts, ongoing land boundary tensions, and cross border terrorism in South Asia is also more complicated than that of Southeast Asia. Thus, these are some of the important factors that need to be acknowledged in better understanding why SAARC continues to trail behind when it comes to regional integration.

How do the major powers like the US and China see regionalism in South Asia?

The US-China power competition centers on either strengthening or revising the established order in the Indo-Pacific. For the past few years, China has been seeking to present an alternative order in the form of the Global Security Initiative, which aims to push its role in Asia at the expense of US leadership. This may lead Beijing to exploit loopholes in key regional organizations to turn it against the West. We have seen attempts from China to turn the BRICS and SCO as anti-West groupings, but it has been unsuccessful. 

Similarly, the US and China are also competing for influence within ASEAN. However, such a scenario is unlikely for SAARC, given the lack of influence the organization has on South Asian politics. Therefore, it is likely for the US and China to directly engage with regional states for the purpose of deepening their respective strategic footprints in the vital sub-region of the Indo-Pacific.

Major political parties are busy forming and toppling governments at both the federal and provincial levels. Even a month after the change in the coalition at the center, the process of forming new governments in the provinces remains incomplete. Provincial governments have become even more unstable than the federal government. 

At the same time, major political parties are engaged in blame-games. The country is facing numerous challenges, such as an economic recession, rampant corruption, and poor governance. Even worse is the  silence of parties over sensitive issues that demand immediate and urgent attention. Over the past few months, Hindu-Muslim clashes in the Tarai region and Christian-Hindu clashes in the hill region have been escalating. Last week, the local administration in Sunsari had to impose a curfew for a couple of days to calm tensions. This week, tensions brewed when a rally organized by Hindu organizations was disrupted by another group. These incidents are not isolated; similar clashes are erupting in different parts of the country.

This surge in inter-community conflicts marks a troubling departure from Nepal's history of religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence among its diverse communities. It is evident that certain vested interests are sowing seeds of discord in Nepali society by providing financial and logistical support to fuel these tensions. Nepal's security agencies, including the Nepal Army, have ground information about the groups trying to create disturbance in Nepali society. It is time to act tough to control these activities. This should become the agenda of major political parties in Parliament. Unfortunately, parties preoccupied with power struggles have yet to take the issue seriously.

Major political parties must prioritize addressing this escalating social crisis. They must unequivocally denounce these divisive activities and urge their members to refrain from participating in such provocations. Similarly, civil society, media and other social organizations, including religious organizations, must also rally to confront this challenge. Such tensions could spiral out of control any time, unleashing a new crisis which will be more detrimental than the Maoist insurgency. The inaction from the government and political parties is surprising. As a first step, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal should call an all-party meeting to discuss this agenda.

The government is set to host the International Expert Dialogue on Mountain, People and Climate Change starting May 22. 

The Ministry of Forest and Environment (MoFE) announced that the two-day event will convene experts from relevant sectors in Kathmandu with the aim of fostering consensus among mountain nations, stakeholders, and partners on shared challenges, particularly focusing on mountain-based solutions for addressing climate change concerns.

“This dialogue aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of mountain-climate issues and solutions among governments and stakeholders in mountainous regions and their allies. It seeks to foster the exchange of expertise and experiences, as well as to promote synergies,” said MoFE. 

The areas of collaboration include initiatives such as those outlined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mountain work programs and mandates. The dialogue also intends to generate concrete roadmaps and strategies for mountain regions ahead of the 60th session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and beyond. The SBSTA meeting is due to take place in June. 

According to Buddi Sagar Poudel, Joint-secretary and chief of Climate Change Management Division at the MoFE, around 10 participants including Harry Vreuls, chair of the SBSTA, have already confirmed their presence in the dialogue. “We have invited delegates from four fronts—ministers from neighboring and regional countries, officials from UNFCCC and mountain partnership focal point which include 63 countries, officials from 15 organizations including Climate Investment Fund and researchers, scientists and university professors,” he said.

Deepak Kumar Kharal, secretary of MoFE, expressed gratitude for the support extended by various development partners, civil society groups, and Nepali experts in the run up to the dialogue. He also urged all stakeholders, including the media, to contribute significantly to ensure the success of the event.

Mountains are invaluable natural resources, being home to 15 percent of the global population and nearly half of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. They provide essential ecosystem goods and services, such as freshwater and clean air, to communities worldwide, particularly those downstream. However, mountains face significant pressures from exploitation, degradation, and the impacts of climate change. 

Despite their importance, mountains often lack adequate recognition and representation in global discussions. The government is hosting the international expert dialogue to underscore the urgency of addressing the challenges and issues of mountain nations. 

Nepal has prioritized promoting the mountain agenda on the global stage lately. The COP28, held from 30 Nov to 13 Dec 2023 in Dubai, served as a crucial milestone in recognizing the impacts of climate change on mountainous regions worldwide, laying the groundwork for further action. 

In several platforms of the climate summit, high-level government officials, including Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal stated that developed countries’ pledges and actions do not correspond with each other and they must raise their ambitions and urgently fulfill their commitments. They also urged the developed countries to scale up climate finance to make up for the $100bn shortfall and double the adaptation finance by 2025, and ensure fair financial arrangements without conditions, constraints, and compliances. 

As the chair of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Nepal also demanded that the loss and damage fund must be predictable, simplified, and adequate for LDCs and mountainous countries. One of the major achievements of the Dubai climate summit was the launch of the loss and damage fund to provide crucial support to vulnerable nations facing the brunt of climate-related challenges. 

The international dialogue to be held in Kathmandu will feature opening and closing plenary sessions, along with thematic discussions centered around three main areas, encompassing two plenary sessions and seven dialogues addressing various aspects of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The first theme will delve into topics such as evidence of climate change impact, vulnerability, and risks in mountainous regions, as well as emerging threats and the imperative for action within and beyond mountain environments. The second will explore areas such as community-driven adaptation, policy frameworks for sustainability, and the importance of climate justice and local perspectives. And the third theme will focus on the perspective of mountains, emphasizing the potential for economic growth through transitions to cleaner energy sources, the mobilization of climate finance, and the fostering of global cooperation and regional partnerships.

With an expected participation of over 200 representatives from mountainous countries, international organizations, development partners, NGOs, private sectors, and civil society groups, the dialogue aims to facilitate collective insights and conclusions. These outcomes will then be integrated into the SBSTA expert dialogue, including Nepal’s initiative on Sagarmatha Sambad.

Poudel, the chief of Climate Change Management Division at the MoFE, said   that concepts are being developed for the promotion of the event.  “We are also approaching our ambassadors and heads of missions abroad for the promotion, as well as inviting foreign ambassadors to Nepal.”

Poudel said that Nepal is focusing on including the mountain agenda from every front in the SBSTA dialogue to give more visibility for Nepal’s climate agenda. 

“In loss and damage, climate justice, climate finance and climate technology, we will incorporate mountain agenda,” he added.

Climate change expert Madhukar Upadhya said while incorporating the mountain agenda is a good initiative, it would be far better for Nepal to come up with a common regional voice. 

He suggested agriculture as an entry point for a common regional agenda. 

“Every country has faced a crisis in agriculture due to climate change and hence they will be more willing to take ownership of this agenda and make it a strong regional voice.”