Submit your Article

As The Annapurna Express embarks on its 10-part ‘InDepth’ investigation into the time and cost overruns of the 72.5-km Kathmandu-Tarai fast track project, a few things are already clear enough. One concerns the role of Nepal Army, which has been contracted to build what is essentially a construction project. The project is well past its scheduled completion date and the new deadline of 2024-end also looks doubtful. Given the paucity of progress in the past five years, can the army still be trusted to complete it on time and within a reasonable budget—with the initial estimated cost already more than doubling?

The second big issue is the compensation of the locals of Khokana, the start-point of the road. Some reckon it’s all about monetary compensation: give them enough, and they will readily give their land for the ‘national pride project’. But then Khokana locals appear as concerned about preserving their ancestral ways as they are about getting the right amount for their plots. To save their settlements, many of them want the proposed road to make a detour—to some added cost, one would imagine.

The third issue relates to reports of irregularities, for instance during the sub-contracting of the project’s tunnel-phase to a pair of Chinese builders. The parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has flagged the army’s flouting of due process in its awarding of contract. This contracting and subcontracting business has also created confusion. For instance, pointing out tree-stumps to ApEx reporters, locals in Makwanpur complained of Chinese builders indiscriminately chopping trees for the project. But Nepal Army says no trees in the district have been felled. Does the army even know what the builders are up to on the ground?

There was a consensus in a recent ApEx roundtable on the fast track that the army’s role in the project should be thoroughly evaluated. This will also help in the larger debate on its role and responsibilities. Another clear takeaway was that without enough consultations with stakeholders, these mega-projects invariably hit hurdles. There is seemingly a lot to learn to get our development right.

At the end of the day, the total market capitalisation stood at Rs 3.81 trillion.

Former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal writes to the MCC Headquarters pledging support for its Nepal compact. Back home, he denounces the same compact to shore up his communist base. Another former prime minister, KP Oli, someone who pushed for the compact’s parliamentary endorsement while in power, now decides to sit on the fence.

The current prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, has always backed the compact’s endorsement. But to get the support to do so from his coalition partners he also has to agree to impeach the chief justice. The old Panchayat stalwart Kamal Thapa swears by the Holy Gita to never again break away from the mother RPP ship. But when defeated in the contest for party chair, he abandons it pronto. How do people trust these two-faced politicians? And what kind of a political culture are they trying to establish?

 It would perhaps not be unfair to say that almost all the important political forces of Nepal have lost their ideological moorings. The once-revolutionary Maoist party is now no different to the traditional parliamentary parties it liked to denounce. And it would be a stretch to call CPN-UML, the corporatist machine, a ‘communist’ party. Nepali Congress too has thrown in its lot with free-market capitalism, having long forgotten its social-democracy roots. With every political outfit and politician out to grab power and make a fast buck to win the ever-expensive elections, Nepali politics has lost its direction.

 The drawn-out MCC saga has again exposed our politicians’ willingness to even trade away national interests to get a leg-up on political opponents. Everything is negotiable—and not just with forces within the country. Our politicians will also readily do the bidding of foreign powers. In this situation, what we need is a mechanism for the public to express its disappointment with politicians. As we argue in this week’s ‘What if…?’ column, one way of doing so would be to inject the ‘right to reject’ option in ballot papers for elections to all three tiers. Let us see how many Nepalis, if given a choice, would vote in favor of a new set of political leaders.

With the announcement of single-phase local elections on May 13, the country has entered election mode. This is something to be celebrated. There was a lot of political uncertainty following the downfall of the KP Oli government. People had given a five-year mandate to the communist coalition of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center), which eventually merged into the Nepal Communist Party (NCP). Yet the NCP split and the government it led fell after three years. Nepali Congress, distant-second in the last parliamentary elections, never had the mandate to lead the government—and yet it does now. 

 It is only right that the political logjam be cleared through elections. The Sher Bahadur Deuba-led government was vacillating over local polls in what was a purely political calculation. It even seemed ready to bend electoral laws and even the constitution to postpone polls. But continuous pressure from the Election Commission, the opposition parties, the media and the civil society paid off and the government was forced to announce a timely election date. This shows that despite the myriad deficiencies in the three organs of the state, it is still difficult to easily subvert Nepal’s democratic spirit.

 Besides all the usual challenges for any elections in Nepal—including curbing sky-high campaign spending—there is also the added burden of holding such a vast mass-mobilization exercise during a deadly pandemic, which, despite its ebbs and flows, shows no sign of soon disappearing. The big challenge here will not be getting voters to maintain social distance or wear masks. It will rather be to convince political parties to resist from holding unnecessary rallies and gatherings: such reckless electoral campaigning was largely responsible for the troubling recent spurt of covid infections in the neighboring Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, and in West Bengal and Assam a year earlier. 

 It will be a tricky balancing act between continuing with a vital democratic exercise and safeguarding public health. But the announcement of local elections undoubtedly represents a rare silver lining in the otherwise gloomy Nepali political skies.

The debate over the MCC compact has dragged on for far too long for anyone’s good. For a controversy that has been years in the making, there are understandably strong opinions on either side. Those opposed to it remain adamant that it is a part of US military strategy and inimical to Nepal’s interest. Those in favor find not much wrong with a compact that has over the years had the support of all of Nepal’s major political forces. Moreover, as they see it, the time-bound, transmission line-and-road grant project is very much in Nepal’s interest.

We believe time has come to settle the debate once and for all. The country has been endlessly debating the MCC compact over the past five years, as if it had no more pressing issue. The longer the compact has dragged on, the more domestic political actors have been inclined to use it for partisan gains. True, the Americans did not help their own cause through their contradictory statements on the compact. But then it is up to Nepal to settle it, based on its own calculations.

The government should table it in parliament and let the sovereign body decide its fate. We are in favor of endorsing a compact that successive Nepali governments have committed to implementing. But if the parliament rejects it, so be it. At least that will be the end of the story. The compact has been so politicized and hyped up that instead of vital national issues like implementation of federalism and better preparing the country for future pandemics, the electoral debate has come to be perversely centered on a comparably innocuous bilateral agreement.

Any foreign help comes with strings attached. What Nepal has to decide is if it needs continued US support and presence. This newspaper has long argued that it is dangerous for Nepal to completely rely on its two neighbors. (Remember Lipulekh?) We will also do well to internalize that all future American help and engagement with Nepal will, in one or the other way, be linked to its strategic objective of containing China. So let us first be clear about what we want.