Submit your Article

Complacency is proving to be deadly. The ratio of corona-positives in daily tests is again over 25 percent, which means at least one of every four of us has the Covid-19 virus. The total number of covid deaths, meanwhile, has crossed 10,000.

This isn’t a surprise. Under 10 percent of the population is fully vaccinated yet most folks seem to have thrown caution to the wind. Masks are being ditched. Few are now using the once fashionable hand sanitizer. Public vehicles are crowded again.  

Yes, the vaccination rate is up, as reportedly around 200,000 a day are being administered. Vaccines are also arriving from abroad in large quantities. Yet that does not mean we are safe. Even the fully vaccinated are showing troubling covid symptoms as the virus continues to mutate. For the rest, they simply don’t seem to care. Having had enough of being locked down in their homes, they are breaking free with abandon. Covid numbers are shooting up all over the country and empty ICU beds are again starting to fill up. Authorities meanwhile seem to be groping for a coherent response.

On August 10, the covid-restrictions in Kathmandu valley were extended till August 24, with a new provision that bars non-essential vehicles from plying after 8 pm. But that means little when nearly all establishments have been allowed to open, in clear violation of the restrictive measures. Our local, provincial, and federal authorities, it appears, are happy to be seen as doing something—anything.

Corona-related restrictions are tricky and hard to get right. Health is important but so is getting back to your professional and academic routines, which, when disrupted for long enough, can invite their own set of challenges. The missing ingredient in effective corona control in the past year and a half was trust. Still, not much is being done to regain that all-important component of the social contract between those governing and the governed. And without it, even the best of plans will fail. 

In the 18 years he played for Nepal, two distinct avatars of Paras Khadka emerged. The middle-order batsman and medium-pacer who captained the national men’s cricket team for a decade was a brilliant all-rounder, leading Nepal to some unbelievable wins, most notably during the T20i World Cup in 2014. His second avatar was that of a fearless speaker who never stopped talking about the need for sweeping reforms in how Nepali cricket has been run over the years. He repeatedly took on the Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) bigwigs, his employers who were mostly political appointees.

It thus comes as music to the ears of Nepali cricket fans that Khadka, after his retirement at the age of 33, is now interested in serving in the association. In fact, even though he has not said so publicly, his constant tussles with CAN administrators might have contributed to his relatively early retirement. Perhaps he had had enough. Khadka had given up captaincy in 2019 and would have retired the same year had there been other players in the pipeline to fill his giant boots.

In many ways Khadka was Nepal’s first sporting idol, loved across generations. The millennials could easily identify with his fearless persona. The ease with which he presented himself abroad was also something of pride for the whole country. The body language of the whole team had changed under him. The new message: they would be pushovers no more. Khadka, as captain, was also a master at working the media, a trait that helped bring much-needed attention to the dysfunctional state of national cricket.  

We here at ApEx would like to wholeheartedly thank Khadka for the countless moments of joy he brought to us while representing Nepal. You were a treat to watch. We also hope that you get into cricket administration soon. We need administrators who know the game, who can work in cricketers’ interests, and who can fend off political interference. Again, Captain Nepal fits the bill perfectly. 

President of Bibeksheel Sajha Party Rabindra Mishra has every right to freely explain his vision for the country, however odious his prescriptions may sound to many. Mishra urges the country to ditch federalism and hold a referendum on its secular status. These are valid political propositions. He is also right that there have not been enough informed public debates over these vital issues, neither at the time of constitution promulgation in 2015 nor after that. All those trying to shout him down because of his ‘regressive’ ideas are also into a kind of regression: stifling free speech.

Now, let’s get to some of Mishra’s ideas. He says federalism should be scrapped by the sovereign legislature. His main premise is that federalism was something imposed on Nepal and that it poses grave risk to Nepal’s territorial integrity. Secularism, another imposition, will meanwhile in his view tear apart the country’s social fabric. His high praise for monarchs also suggests he sees a place for monarchy in his imagination of Nepal.

There is little to suggest federalism is a greater risk than a unitary state. Since its independence in 1947, India has had a disproportionate sway in Nepal, a unitary state for most of this period. As Mishra himself says India in this period had proposed some treaties that threatened Nepal’s very existence. So it is disingenuous to argue that federalism, only installed in 2015, has already emerged as a bigger threat. Nor is his argument that the nascent federalism is unaffordable sound. In fact, devolution of power to the lower rungs have already sped up service delivery and eased public access to vital services. How do you put a price on that?

On secularism, too, some of Mishra’s claims are dubious. It was under the monarchy-run Hindu state that Evangelical Christianity spread in the country like wildfire. Secularism seems to have made no material difference in its spread or in the ‘breaking apart’ of Nepal’s social fabric, as Mishra puts it. Nor does Nepal’s post-1950 history suggest monarchy is somehow uniquely suited to protecting Nepali interests. Just like politicians today, the erstwhile monarchs acted more often in self than in collective interest. Rabindra Mishra has started an important debate (and ApEx only scratches its surface in this editorial). This is also the perfect time to prove him and the adherents of his beliefs wrong.

Consider the paradox: A constitutionally ‘socialism-oriented’ country continues to pour billions of rupees of taxpayer money, not into vital health and education sectors, but a perennially loss-making airline. In the pinch of the Covid-19 pandemic, the national flag carrier lost Rs 5 billion in the last fiscal year. Its total debt comes to Rs 47 billion. Yet the unions of the various political parties insist that the way forward is to continue with business as usual. They are now protesting against the organization’s planned part-privatization, as ‘privatization has never worked in Nepal’.

This is a specious argument, given the wretched history of the airline. Even before the pandemic, it was struggling to balance its books after the entry of better-managed private carriers. This was not just the case in the domestic sector but, increasingly, also internationally, as even here the entry of Himalaya Airlines challenged its monopoly on lucrative international routes such as Dubai and Kuala Lumpur. The purchase of four Airbus jets and the grounding of turboprops procured from China, both on pandemic-eve, only added to its burdens.

There can be no reason to continue with the failed formula applied to the NAC over the years. This entailed appointing political cronies, using them to channel airline procurement and leasing funds into the coffers of ruling parties and giving lucrative bonuses to politically inclined employees, even as the organization’s collective debt continued to mount. Other potentially workable plans such as handing over airline management to a foreign company were shelved too. If the NAC were to be run like a well-oiled private enterprise, more than a handful of greedy middlemen stand to lose their access to easy money.

Reform efforts have been initiated at various times by various governments, from across the political spectrum. But then the bureaucrats and union bosses of the same political parties have stymied such efforts each time. Either Nepal Airlines has to be permanently grounded or, more desirably, obstacles for its part-privatization must be cleared. There can’t be two ways about it. We cannot have a purely business-minded national carrier, as private airlines tend to shun difficult and less-profitable routes. But we can’t afford to lug along this white elephant any longer either.