Submit your Article

Two recently proposed regulations highlight the opacity and unaccountability of our government mechanisms. The first one stipulates that under-40 women who wish to travel abroad must first obtain written travel recommendations from their family as well as the local ward office. Such a rule, we are told, will check the trafficking of Nepali women. There was not a single woman in the eight-person government panel that made this recommendation.

The second regulation makes the registration of all “online TV” mandatory, with the license for such a channel costing Rs 500,000. Compulsory registration and high fees will apparently deter the peddlers of fake news and instill some decency in the raucous Nepali media sphere. Nowhere does the regulation define what exactly constitutes “online TV”. As it is, the provision could be applied to all YouTube content creators—which is absurd. From now on, if you want to upload your latest dance moves, you may first need to fork out half-a-million rupees.

Just like no women were consulted while drafting the new visa rules, no online content creator was on board while coming up with a proposal that clearly violates people’s constitutional right to free speech. The hush-hush surrounding the origin of these rules suggest the involvement of vested interests. No wonder the public trust of their government is low: a 2021 Sharecast Initiative Nepal nationwide survey found only 11 percent of those surveyed trusted their prime minister, while just 31 percent of them thought the federal government was doing a satisfactory job.

That Nepal continues to be run by a bunch of know-all graying men who feel entitled to act on behalf of the whole country, often without any consultation and feedback, makes a mockery of the new federal system. The country threw away the autocratic monarchy in order to establish a free and fair society. But systemic discrimination against women, minorities and free-speech advocates continue in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Nearly 15 years into the federal project, the remnants of the old unaccountable and corrupt state remain largely intact. They must be resisted every step of the way. 

The recent acrimonious debate on the MCC Nepal compact owed partly to the Nepali political parties’ inconsistent foreign policy thinking. Typically, top party leaders take most foreign policy-related decisions with little or no inputs from the rank and file. The ensuing confusion is then reflected in the country’s muddled foreign policy approach. Thankfully, we also get some things right. On the compact, there was a broad political consensus in the end. The country’s latest stand on Ukraine is also laudable.

Issuing a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, rightly arguing that the “recognition of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions as independent entities goes contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter.” Nepal, the statement went on, “opposes the use of force against a sovereign country in any circumstance.” Later, Nepal voted in favor of an urgent debate on the Ukraine crisis at the UN Human Rights Council.

Russia’s invasion imperiled the lives and livelihoods of over 400 Nepalis who were living in Ukraine and are now scrambling to get out. It is natural for the government of Nepal to be concerned about them. But more than that, it is a matter of standing up for what is right. Some laughed off Nepal’s statement on Ukraine: what does the stand of a relative non-entity in international power politics matter? This is selling the country short.

As a sovereign state, Nepal has every right to freely express its views on any issue. But as a responsible member of the international community, it also has responsibilities. On the face of such blatant crime against humanity and aggression against a small state, staying silent or issuing a mealy-mouthed ‘diplomatic’ statement would have been cowardice.

Nepal hasn’t always gotten its foreign policy act right. And we are rather quick to criticize our government and foreign policy establishment when they make diplomatic blunders. But, by the same token, when they do something right, their efforts should be appreciated too. So, again, kudos to the government for its strong stand on Ukraine whose 44m people need all the help they can get right now.

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.