Submit your Article

All Nepalis have the freedom to practice their religion, including Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Yet his new-found penchant for Hinduism is still odd, as he has never been a religious person. In fact, as a communist, he abhors all religions. Notably, it was under his leadership that the secular 2015 constitution was promulgated. But, suddenly, and without a shred of evidence, he now claims Lord Ram was born in Nepal. He has also started offering ‘lakhbatti’ in Pashupati. Oli is clearly calculating: having called for mid-term polls, he is now looking to cash in on the pro-Hindu sentiment.

Oli has for some time been angling for the support of the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party. He is also rumored to be exploring a ‘Hindu alliance’ for the upcoming elections. That would be unwise. Nepal’s Hindu status, many argue, should be restored as it is over 80 percent Hindu. But this argument can easily be turned on its head: there really is no need to ‘protect’ the Sanatan Dharma that is being practiced by so many. If anything, it is other religious minorities like Buddhists, Kiratis, Muslims and Christians who need to be protected from the Hindu majoritarian impulses vote-minded politicians could fan. 

Oli is now inclined towards Hinduism, now that the Nepal Communist Party he co-led is imploding and his grip on power is slipping. Religion is an emotive issue and perhaps the easiest with which to sway the masses. As the BJP’s anti-Muslim fervor in India suggests, it can also be combustible, and easily used to divide societies. The historically uneasy relation between state and religion is the reason they are kept separate in most modern nation-states. Nepal has already had its share of conflicts over the past few decades. The last thing it now needs is a religious strife.

This is a message not just for Oli. There also exist strong pro-Hindu lobbies in opposition Nepali Congress and Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal. Rastriya Prajatantra Party has always been a staunch pro-Hindu force. They would all do well to keep religion out of politics in national interest. There are far too many constitutional, political and socio-economic problems left to be fixed without the country also having to deal with religious tensions. It would be unfortunate if next set of elections, whenever they take place, were to be largely decided based on people’s religious sentiments.

The million doses of Covid-19 vaccines that arrived in Nepal from India on Jan 21 represent the tip of the iceberg of what is needed to inoculate the country’s 29 million population. Nepal for instance will need around 40 million doses of the kind India gave: around 72 percent of the population has to be inoculated, each person twice. India provided the first million doses free of cost. But future consignments will not be free. Besides India, cash-strapped Nepal is also looking at China and Russia as potential suppliers; if they don’t charge us, so much the better.

Navigating the vaccine minefield will be tricky. First, some vaccines Nepal may get may not have been scientifically tested, or at least not with the expected rigor. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the safety of various Indian, Russian and Chinese vaccines. If different vaccines are given to different people, how can broad immunity be assured? What if some vaccines are dangerous? This is why, as far as practicable, and even if it means paying a bit more, Nepal should look to import one proven vaccine in large doses. (The Oxford- AstraZeneca vaccine that came in the first consignment from India certainly meets scientific standards.)

Another problem will be the delivery and dispensation of vaccines. Frontline workers like hospital staff and police personnel, the first group to be inoculated in Nepal, will have to wait for at least a couple of weeks before their first jab. Apparently, those administering the vaccine will first have to undergo training. And who ensures the vaccines are going to the right people—that they won’t ‘disappear’ from hospital freezers and end up coursing the veins of the highest bidders?

But before all that, we will have to get the required number of vaccines. Russia, it had been reported in some quarters, was ready to offer us 25 million doses of its Sputnik V vaccines. But then the news was refuted by Nepali officials. As of now, there is no clarity on where the remaining doses are coming from. The government would do well to issue regular updates on its procurement process and on how the vaccines will be handled and equitably delivered.   

The war of words between the two Nepal Communist Party factions—or should we call them separate parties now?—is getting uglier by the day. Prime Minister and NCP co-chair KP Oli has tossed aside any decency as he criticizes senior leaders of the rival faction in most unseemly terms. Angered by Oli’s constant provocations, Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal, the two rival-faction leaders, are also throwing their own ugly jabs. On Jan 13, Dahal referred to Oli as a ‘joker’. 

What is essentially a clash of egos between senior communist leaders has also thrown the country into deep political and constitutional turmoil. Each faction claims to represent the ‘authentic’ NCP and deserving of the original party name and the much-sought election symbol of sun. The Election Commission is considering their claims, even as the issues of House dissolution and some constitutional appointments are sub judice at the Supreme Court. We are afraid that the internecine struggle in the NCP could have a damning impact on the Nepali democratic process and its nascent federal architecture. 

It is not only the Nepali Congress that has gotten a new lease of life as it looks to profit from what is a de facto NCP split. The Madhes-based Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal, the third biggest force in the national legislature, is making its own calculations as it looks to dust off its old constitution-amendment agenda. The big danger though comes from the royalists, the supporters of the monarchy and Hindu state. They essentially want to overturn all of Nepal’s post-2006 political achievements.

The growing involvement of India and China in Nepal’s domestic politics will further complicate things. A big chunk of the Indian establishment would like to see Nepal as a Hindu state, and reckons now is the perfect time to push the agenda. China too seems determined to preserve the clout it enjoyed under the NCP government. Like it or not, these two foreign actors will play a big role, direct or indirect, in shaping Nepali politics for years to come, including in the determination of future electoral outcomes. 

As the grip of Nepal’s principle democratic actors on national politics loosens, various domestic and foreign elements unhappy with Nepal’s recent political changes will seek to push their destabilizing agendas. This will put Nepal’s federal democratic project at an imminent risk.  

In the early hours of January 6, in what were surreal scenes even in an era dominated by Donald Trump, the American clown of a president, potentially thousands of pro-Trump supporters barged into United States Capitol, the federal legislature. Four people were killed in the melee. US Senators and Congressmen were seen scrambling for cover. The march on Capitol followed exhortations by Trump to his supporters that they “would never take back our country with weakness”. The occasion that had drawn these people together was the legislative confirmation of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

The American democratic system has been a frequent butt of jokes the world around following Trump’s election as the US President in 2016. It became a laughing stock on January 6. The dictatorship of Venezuela issued a statement, expressing its concern over the violence in Washington DC. “The United States is suffering the same thing that it has generated in other countries with its policies of aggression,” it read. The foreign ministry of Turkey, another enemy of Trump’s America, said it believed “the US will overcome this internal political crisis in a mature manner”. Both the countries were mocking previous US statements on their domestic affairs.  

It is easy to ridicule the Trump-era American democratic process, not to mention the country’s ‘imperial’ interventions abroad. Yet what transpired on January 6 was also, in a way, a sign of the resilience of American democracy. Biden’s victory was confirmed despite every effort by Trump to discredit the US electoral system. On the same day, a Black man was elected as US senator, for the first time in the history of the state of Georgia. In the process, the Democrats also took control of the Senate— the US House of Representatives was already in their bag—in what was yet another instance of popular rejection of Trumpianism.

A similar sequence of events in other democratic presidential systems, for instance in Turkey or Russia, could very well have culminated in successful coups by their all-powerful executives. Democracies around the world now find themselves in crisis, partly as a result of the ultra-nationalist right-wing populism unleased by the likes of Trump, Bolsonaro and Modi. The final act of Trump’s repudiation by the American electorate and its democratic institutions on January 6 will, hopefully, make other potential dictators and Trump idolizers pause before they think of bending the democratic process to their will.