Submit your Article

Chief of the Army Staff Prabhu Ram Sharma has admitted to the parliamentarians that the Nepali Army would be unable to complete the Kathmandu Tarai/Madhes Fast-Track within the stipulated deadline of April 2027. The project was handed over to the army in 2017, setting a four-year deadline.

This setback has cast a shadow of uncertainty over the fate of this national pride project. Over the past six years, the project has achieved only 28.56 percent physical progress and 29.44 percent financial progress. After widespread criticism of its inability to expedite the project, the army is now passing the blame on other state agencies. Moreover, CoAS Sharma contended that the new deadline cannot be achieved if necessary laws are not amended.

The state mechanisms must address and overcome the hurdles facing the army, particularly those related to felling trees, land acquisition, and the import of explosive materials. As far as strict environmental laws are concerned, they are not only for the army; they apply to all. The army was aware of these laws before it accepted the project. In the first place, the army should not have accepted the government's offer to implement the project because building an expressway is beyond its technical capacity. Additionally, their involvement in business and infrastructure works is already tarnishing their image as a professional and apolitical institution.

The decision to award the project to the army was rooted in the belief that it could execute development works more efficiently than other state mechanisms. However, the army has struggled to expend the government-allocated funds in recent years. Given the economic strain that the government is facing, the army might face a fund crunch even if it expedites the project. People are raising concerns about the delay today. Tomorrow will bring inquiries into the transparency of expenditures and related issues as it involves taxpayers’ money. Instead of deflecting blame onto other state entities, the army leadership should, therefore, earnestly consider expediting the project. If the army feels that it cannot complete the project, it is better to tell the government frankly.

The Tarai-Madhes Fast-Track Project has taught a lesson to both the army and the political leadership. The army shouldn't engage in such infrastructure development works. Instead, it should focus on strengthening the institution to deal with emerging security challenges, particularly those arising from climate-induced disasters. The more the national army engages in controversial projects, the more it risks damaging its reputation. Politicians should refrain from awarding projects merely to appease the national army. And, parliamentarians instead of engaging in publicity stunts should work to resolve the problems faced by the Army in fast track to complete it on time. 

COP28 has concluded with an agreement that signals the ‘beginning of the end’ for the fossil fuel era by laying the ground for a swift, just and equitable transition supported by substantial emissions reductions and increased financial commitments.

Despite this progress, the absence of a concrete deadline for phasing out fossil fuels remains a notable shortcoming, particularly in meeting the crucial 1.5-degree temperature rise limit. While celebrations echo in the Western world, the outcome has left least developed and developing countries dissatisfied.The most celebrated outcome for countries like Nepal is the operationalization of loss and damage funds. But pledges made by big countries to the fund are disappointingly low at $700m.

 Studies show developing nations require a minimum of $400bn annually to effectively address loss and damage due to climate change. Furthermore, the operational details of the fund and its beneficiaries remain unclear. Nevertheless, Nepal achieved success in highlighting the agendas of mountainous regions and issues related to the least developed countries during COP28. 

High-level rhetoric does not automatically translate into action. We have struggled to attract sufficient funds from international sources in the past. For instance, due to a lack of sufficient homework and preparations, Nepal received very minimal support from the Green Investment Fund. While Nepal is technically eligible for loss and damage funds, the responsibility lies with the country to conduct thorough groundwork and preparations. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal has returned home after attending the COP28. However, he has not held any meeting with agencies concerned to undertake the necessary preparations.

The Prime Minister is just engaged in a publicity stunt saying that Nepal has been loud and clear this time without specifying what that means. The global community is well aware of the severe impacts of climate change in Nepal. It is a brutal reality that Nepal is not alone in facing these challenges. Securing climate finance is a competitive process and it is contingent on a nation’s capacity. As far as documentation is concerned, Nepal has done a commendable job. 

The Ministry of Forests and Environment has done adequate study about the multifaceted impacts of climate change. However, Nepal lags behind in enhancing capacity for negotiations and research. While the ministry is the nodal agency for handling such issues, there is a lack of coordination among government bodies. PM Dahal should, therefore, form a high-powered mechanism dedicated to climate-related issues. The PM’s efforts to advocate for Nepal’s agenda will be judged by tangible actions, not mere words.

In recent months, there has been a notable surge in foreign travels by ministers, parliamentarians, heads of constitutional bodies, security agencies and senior government officials for bilateral visits, and for participation in multilateral forums. These activities, which were restricted for three years due to the Covid-19 pandemic, have resumed, both from Nepal to other nations and vice-versa. While bilateral visits and international engagements are inherent to diplomatic practices, the level of transparency surrounding these visits has become a growing concern.

One key aspect to address is the lack of transparency in communicating the details of these visits. When ministers, heads of security agencies and constitutional bodies embark on foreign visits, there should be transparency regarding their agendas, meetings and discussions with foreign counterparts. 

The current practice of issuing brief and vague press releases just before the visits, without providing adequate information on the purpose and agenda, is insufficient. Since major powers seek to influence the state for their own interests, it becomes imperative to ensure transparency in these interactions. Sometimes, even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Nepali embassies abroad remain uninformed about high-level visits.

There is a considerable influx of visits from major countries to Nepal, but many of these visits are not disclosed to the public, and even when they are, the agendas remain undisclosed. The foreign ministry is often bypassed in such meetings. While the government had previously introduced a policy requiring high-level officials to submit reports to the Prime Minister's Office after foreign visits, this policy is often disregarded. It is now essential to revisit and reinforce such provisions to guarantee adherence.

There have been instances where high-level officials have entered agreements with foreign countries without informing relevant agencies, raising concerns about the potential compromise of Nepal's national interests. To safeguard against such risks, it is imperative to establish a comprehensive policy ensuring transparency in all high-level official visits.

Seven years after the first Constituent Assembly election, Nepal promulgated a new constitution in 2015, formally transitioning the nation into a republican federal state. This significant milestone could be achieved only by reaching a compromise among major political actors. The major political parties demonstrated considerable flexibility in their party positions to reach a consensus on contentious issues of the constitution. While all parties had reservations about the constitution, there was a sort of realization that a constitution dominated by a single party was untenable within the existing political landscape. Nevertheless, Madhes-based parties initially refrained from taking ownership of the constitution stating that their demands were not addressed. 

Later, after the first amendment in the constitution, Madhes-based parties too, in a way, took the ownership by participating in elections under the new constitutional framework and also joined the government. Despite some shortcomings, the international community has commended Nepal's constitution, hailing it as one of the most progressive in South Asia. Notably, in terms of securing the inclusion of women and marginalized communities, the 2015 constitution surpasses those of many advanced democratic nations.Of late, the constitution is facing increasing attacks,  primarily from royalist and Hindu fundamentalist forces. These forces, who are unhappy with the removal of monarchy, want to revive the constitution of 1990. Despite the promulgation of a good constitution, major political parties have faltered in delivering good governance and initiating the long-awaited journey toward economic prosperity. Similarly, the major parties have failed to ensure government stability and they seem reluctant to mend their ways. This has created a deep frustration among the populace toward these parties. And some regressive forces are trying to exploit this discontent to advance their agenda, trying to portray the 2015 constitution in a bad light.

It is imperative for major political parties to rectify their course. The emergence of new political entities in national elections and the increasing public dissent should serve as a wake-up call for the political parties. Any flaws in the 2015 constitution can be addressed by reaching consensus among political parties. However, its fundamental tenets such as secularism, federalism, and inclusion should remain intact, at least for now. Attempts to alter these foundational principles  would be like opening Pandora's Box and pushing the country into another cycle of conflict and instability. All parties that played pivotal roles in drafting the 2015 constitution must unite once again to protect the constitution. If the 2015 constitution is dismantled, it is not sure the new constitution will be drafted and that it will be a better replacement. Therefore, now is the time to stand up in favor of the 2015 constitution. Reversing the current course is not a solution to our current ills.