Submit your Article

It’s difficult to form opinions based solely on the speeches of Nepal’s political leaders and their political documents. More often than not they contradict themselves, disregarding their previous positions. 

Amid discussions of unity within communist parties, the recent political document presented by CPN-UML Chairman KP Oli has sparked interest, as it explicitly states UML's reluctance to endorse polarization among major political entities under the guise of communist unity. This stance has raised eyebrows within CPN (Maoist Center). Presenting his political report at the meeting of the UML National Representatives Council in Lalitpur on Saturday, Oli emphasized that aligning political forces solely under leftist or socialist banners, while excluding other ideologies and entities, is not pragmatic. 

Instead, he stressed the importance of cooperation among like-minded forces. He highlighted the need to foster trust and cooperation among diverse ideological backgrounds, suggesting that unity should evolve naturally as trust deepens. "As cooperation deepens and an environment of trust is built, those with similar ideas can gradually come together in the future. But for now, it is more important to move forward by taking all positive forces along." 

Regarding the current political landscape, Oli acknowledged that the formation of a new alliance comprising the Maoist Center, UML, Rastriya Swatantra Party, and few other parties has improved the political situation. However, he expressed concerns about the sustainability of this coalition, citing past incidents. “Based on some past incidents, contexts, and experiences, there are doubts in people’s mind about the sustainability of this cooperation," Oli said. He underscored the importance of actions over rhetoric in dispelling doubts about the coalition's longevity.

Furthermore, Oli warned of the increased possibility of instability stemming from the presence of multiple parties in parliament, particularly those with diverging views on key constitutional issues. 

"The country is in need of stability. But the presence of a dozen parties in the House of Representatives and a significant number of those disagreeing on key issues of the constitution has further increased the possibility of political instability," he said. 

The UML chair also noted the emergence of populist forces and the resurgence of traditional right-wing parties, attributing these trends to disillusionment among the populace caused by political shortcomings and economic crises. "Political shortcomings, economic crisis, lack of job opportunities and poor governance have all fed the public’s disillusionment with traditional political parties. Meanwhile, populist and right-wing forces are exploiting the public discontent," he added.

While Oli's rejection of immediate leftist unity may seem like a tactical maneuver, he hasn't entirely dismissed its possibility. UML perceives the current coalition as an achievement, having thwarted the anti-UML alliance between Nepali Congress and the Maoist party preceding the 2022 national elections. 

Currently, there are three major communist parties—UML, Maoist Center and CPN (Unified Socialist)—of which UML is the largest and strongest. In case these three parties decide to unite, the asymmetry between them is likely to make the power-sharing and leadership issue very challenging. For instance, Unified Socialist Chairman Madhav Kumar Nepal and Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal may seek vital positions within the unified party, a proposition that the UML leaders close to Oli will not accept. 

The strained relationship between Oli and Nepal could also hinder the unification process. Although the Maoist is talking about communist unity, UML and Unified Socialist do not appear too keen about the idea.  “There are no immediate possibilities of communist parties uniting because of the disparity between their ideologies and their future course,” said Rajendra Pandey, vice-chairman of CPN (Unified Socialist). 

Analysts suggest that Oli prioritizes securing unwavering commitment from all parties before pursuing communist unity in the long term. Although he envisions leading a united communist front eventually, he refrains from polarizing national politics along communist and non-communist lines for now. Uncertainty looms over the future of the current coalition, with UML closely monitoring the government’s functioning while refraining from committing to long-term support for Prime Minister Dahal. Maoist leaders say Oli’s position on left unity could be a tactical move and he may have informed Dahal about it. Or else, they say this could be the beginning of the crisis in the current coalition. 

After Oli unveiled his political document, Prime Minister Dahal has also changed his position about the communist unity. 

“This government is not wholly composed of communist parties. There are other parties too. So it is not a left unity, it is just a ruling coalition. If there is an understanding among the communist parties, they may come together some day,” Dahal said. This was a clear departure from his previous statement where he said that the current coalition was a beginning of the communist unity. 

The key takeaway from Oli’s political document is that UML currently extends support to the government, but it is also keeping avenues open for potential collaboration with Nepali Congress in the future.

The discussion of leftist unity in Nepal has drawn international attention, with China advocating for a unified communist party while other democratic powers prefer a coalition government encompassing both communist and non-communist forces. Oli's political document also addresses escalating geopolitical tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, cautioning against provocative actions that could jeopardize regional stability and world peace, particularly highlighting US involvement in the Taiwan issue. “The task of safeguarding Nepal’s national independence, dignity and national interests has become more complicated, amidst the changing geopolitics, geo-economics and competition between major powers,” Oli said in his political report. “We must move forward carefully to protect our national interests by viewing these changes in geopolitics with a sensitive perspective.”

Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has assured of a shift from the conventional approach while bringing the policies and programs, and the budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Talking to the media at Dhangadhi Airport today, the Prime Minister highlighted the government's preparations for coming up with advanced, objective, and citizen-friendly programs, policies, and the budget. The PM had transited at Dhangadhi Airport while en route to Kanchanpur.

The government head took time to make it clear that the existing government does not reflect the power equation among the leftists.  Instead, it should be considered as a political power equation, he said.  According to him, the incumbent government coalition will complete its full term and there is no issue within it as rumored outside.

Stating that the government is preparing to welcome the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, who is arriving here for his two-day formal visit beginning on April 23. "This opportunity is historic," he said.

Similarly, preparations for the third Nepal Investment Summit scheduled to take place on April 28-29 are near completion, according to him.

"We receive widespread positive and encouraging responses regarding the Summit," he said, adding the government is preparing to introduce some Acts through the ordinances to build an investment-friendly atmosphere.

On the occasion, the PM also shared with the media that Nepal will be hosting an international conference of mountain countries on climate change.

In my previous column, I discussed how chronic political instability is affecting the conduct of our foreign policy. Here, I delve into how foreign powers, big and small alike, influence Nepal’s foreign policy. We often criticize our politicians for their lack of maturity and consistency. In most foreign policy discourses, I often hear this question: Who will believe us (read our politicians)? It is a reality that our politicians are neither serious nor have they realized their weaknesses. But it would be unjust to solely blame our politicians without considering other aspects like how foreign powers are behaving with us. Nepal’s key priorities are economic prosperity and social development. For a long time, we have been mobilizing our foreign policy to achieve these goals.

From Prithivi Narayan Shah to the current set of leaders, all have realized that Nepal is situated between India and China, understanding the difficulties of being caught between two global powerhouses. For a long time, our Rana rulers tried to live in isolation out of fear that opening up could threaten their regime. Nevertheless, they still endeavored to serve both their personal interests and national interests. After the 1950s, Nepal began diversifying its economic, security, development and trade policies or looking beyond its immediate neighbors. Let’s consider the current situation. We are conducting our foreign policy in accordance with the 2015 constitution.

Article 51 of the constitution states: “Safeguarding the freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, independence, and dignity of Nepal, the rights of the Nepalis, border security, economic well-being, and prosperity shall be the basic elements of the national interests of Nepal.” Nepal places economic diplomacy at the forefront of its engagement with the wider international community. We need money and technology to accelerate social development and economic prosperity. Lately, we have been vocal about our reluctance to take on significant loans, preferring grants for infrastructure development. Our stated position is that we will not align with any strategic or military blocs.

Nepal takes a neutral position in regional and international conflicts, consistently advocating for their resolution through peaceful means, with some exceptions resulting from adventurous policies of our politicians. Nepal believes in non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, non-aggression, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. For instance, Nepal opposed the Russian attack on Ukraine while maintaining a neutral stance on other issues. Many argue that this stance contradicts Nepal’s non-alignment policy, but it aligns with our stated policy. If one sovereign country attacks another, Nepal cannot remain neutral and opposes such actions but avoids taking sides.

Our message is clear: we do not wish to be embroiled in big power rivalries, and we urge major powers not to involve us in their geopolitical games. Currently, amid the Middle East crisis, we maintain the same policy. If not a zone of peace, we aspire to become a zone of investment. We have a straightforward message for major powers: we understand and protect your security and other legitimate concerns, but only a prosperous and strong Nepal can effectively address those issues, so invest in our country. Of course, challenges such as corruption and bureaucratic red tape exist, but the investment climate in Nepal is comparatively favorable, and we have big markets like India and China in close proximity. Despite getting huge support from major countries in Nepal’s social and economic development, the country is starting to feel the heat of geopolitical tensions. As these tensions escalate, there is a fear among our politicians that major powers may pull Nepal into their orbit through economic assistance. As major powers roll out strategic initiatives one after another, there are concerns that Nepal may become ensnared in a geopolitical ambush. Not only politicians, but senior bureaucrats also find themselves in awkward positions as they consolidate all bilateral issues under one strategic basket. And, there is a lack of understanding among politicians and bureaucrats about these issues, and there have been no efforts to educate them.

By closely monitoring negotiations between our leaders and major powers, we can see that our leaders are facing pressure. Whenever they engage in talks with their counterparts, they struggle to avoid committing to strategic projects outright. Since they cannot outright reject them out of fear for their regime’s stability, they attempt to reassure that Nepal could consider such initiatives after thorough study and consensus at home. Due to such apprehensions, our politicians are even hesitant to accept pure development projects without strings attached. Similarly, diplomats in Kathmandu bypass the due process in dealing with Nepal. Instead of going through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, foreign countries tend to approach political leaders and certain ministries directly seeking their consent. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may be unaware of a host of initiatives proposed by major powers. If there is institutional memory, foreign countries cannot complain about policy inconsistency or lack of ownership across governments. If all proposals go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which remains unaffected by changes in government, it ensures policy continuity to some extent.

Our stance remains that, due to our geopolitical location and other factors, we cannot align with major powers. Whether termed neutral, non-aligned or otherwise, our bottom line is clear: we seek engagement solely on economic terms. If major powers engage with Nepal in this manner, frequent changes in government may not pose significant difficulties. Therefore, support and invest in Nepal, so that we can safeguard the security and other legitimate interests of our friends. If major powers attempt to turn Nepal into a battleground for their conflicts, it will be detrimental not only to the Nepali people but also to the major powers. We understand that our neighboring countries, both near and distant, desire to see a stable and prosperous Nepal, as it serves their interests. My request to all: we aspire to grow with you as a sovereign and peaceful country. As I mentioned in my previous opinion piece, major countries should not favor one party over another or play them against each other. Instead, they should adopt a Nepal-centric policy with the economy at the forefront. Moreover, major parties should collaborate to formulate a common position on the issues mentioned above. We want to declare Nepal as a Zone of Investment.

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.