Cleaning up e-commerce
The unfolding ATM hacking saga is one more reminder of the pathetic state of the safety of our digital architecture. Five Chinese nationals, abetted by three Nepalis, could withdraw nearly Rs 35 million from various ATMs in Kathmandu after they hacked into these banks’ common card switching mechanism, the Nepal Electronic Payment System (NEPS). In fact, over the past few years, ATM hackings have been taking place with troubling frequency. Nepal Rastra Bank, the central bank, which is supposed to monitor the commercial banks for the strength of their digital safety, has been unable do so with its ‘inadequate resources’.
This is dangerous. Potentially trillions of rupees of people’s savings are at risk. There are apparently many loopholes in our digital payment platform that skillful hackers can exploit. Nepal’s commercial banks have been brazen in their negligence. For instance, even though the central bank has made chip-based debit cards mandatory, many banks continue to dole out cards without these safety features. But then the central bank itself has been lax in monitoring these commercial institutions.
This shows how lightly the Nepali state and its public and private enterprises take digital safety. How irresponsible have successive governments been in not strengthening the central bank’s digital safety branch! Surely, even a few billions rupees is not too high a cost to prevent a potential collapse of Nepal’s economy at the hands of crafty hackers. Yet full-on complacency has been the norm till date. The SCT and NEPS, the brokers of these ATM-based electronic bank transactions, have been breathtakingly negligent, too, with reported cases of their technicians being allowed to operate from their insecure home-based cyber networks.
Hackers in and out of the country are getting more sophisticated, and they know Nepal is among the countries with the least secure electronic infrastructures. In the latest edition of the (global) National Cyber Security Index, Nepal ranks a lowly 92nd out of the 100 countries surveyed. If our leaky digital systems are not overhauled immediately, a far more ruinous heist could be around the corner.
Democracy, online
There is an evolving global debate on the relation between technology and democracy: Have modern technology and its products strengthened democracy or have they weakened it? The jury is still out. Yet the deleterious consequences of the wrong use of technology on democracy can no longer be ignored. At its worst, technology can bitterly divide society and boost undemocratic actors. A good example of the divisive tendency of modern technology is social media. Consider the ongoing legal case of media personality Rabi Lamichhane. His supporters were quick to leap to his defense on Facebook. His critics were as ardent in trying to establish his association with a suicide. The two sides quarreled endlessly. Yet they had one troubling thing in common: neither side trusted state institutions to settle the case fairly.
In the same week, Prime Minister KP Oli conducted a cabinet meeting via a videoconference from Singapore. Nothing wrong with an innovative use of technology in governance. But the videoconference, it turns out, was held over an insecure internet line. A skilled hacker could have listened in to the confidential stuff that were discussed, compromising national interest.
It has now been established that Russian hackers had some (if not a decisive) role in the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. This shows that even the best of online firewalls can be breached. With more and more of our own electoral records being digitized, there is a legitimate fear that they too could be tampered with. Nepali hackers have already shown their prowess in tampering with the websites of our prominent state institutions. The rise of the deep web—a market for everything from illicit drugs to contract killers—poses another problem. The traffic to the deep web has supposedly increased following the government’s porn ban last year.
There is no going back on technology. But there must also be more education on its right use, perhaps starting with greater awareness on the use of social media. It is about time Nepali schools started relevant courses on online misinformation and hate speech. The state must also invest more in protecting sensitive digital information, be the records of bank clients or taxpayers.
Internet and technology have played a crucial role in democratizing access to information and modern-day comforts. But used the wrong way, they can as easily destroy democratic norms and values.
Hindu state again?
Is it at all possible to revive the monarchy? Or the Hindu state? It’s incredible how these questions are being raised less than four years after the promulgation of the post-monarchial constitution of the new federal republic—a constitution that specifically designates Nepal a secular state. Despite all the conspiracy theories doing the rounds, it is hard to see how the monarchy, much reviled in its current avatar, can make a comeback. Besides the adverse public opinion, the political equations are not in its favor either; the parties still pitching for monarchy are miniscule, almost inconsequential forces.
There seems to be a greater constituency in favor of restoring the Hindu state, who are buoyed by the resounding reelection of the Hindu-nationalist BJP in India. Both domestic and international climates are ripe for the restoration of the Hindu state, its advocates say. Whether or not that is the case, there are many other reasons not to go down this perilous path. A modern nation-state is by nature secular, equally respectful of people of all faiths. With over 80 percent of its population comprised of Hindus, Nepal is already a de facto Hindu state. Nothing can change that. Making it a de jure Hindu state will be an exercise in futility, with no plausible benefits.
Why try fixing something that is not broken and invite unforeseeable troubles? Shouldn’t the energies of our political class be rather spent on making the new federal system tick and guiding the country on the path of peace and prosperity? We have already seen the grave consequences of the divisive nationalism based on religion and ethnicity championed by the likes of Trump, Modi and Erdogan. This is turn has resulted in the breakdown of social norms and decency and the steady erosion of democratic freedoms in these societies. The Nepali state taking up the cudgels on behalf of one particular religion will be similarly destabilizing.
Nepal is home to Hindus and Buddhists and Christians and Muslims and people of many other faiths. Except some sporadic troubles, they have mostly lived in harmony since millennia. Why do something that has even a small chance of disturbing that harmony? Having recently drafted a fairly progressive constitution, Nepali political class should be extremely wary of turning the clock back. Not least because it could be a slippery slope to the reversal of all post-2006 gains.
Indo-Pak tensions and Nepal
I guess you hear what you want to hear. Speaking before his parliament on August 6, a day after the Indian government announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan highlighted the urgent need to dial down tensions in the combustible, nuclear-armed region. With the ‘racist’ Modi government determined to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Muslims, there will be more home-made Pulwamas in India, he warned. In that case, India will again attack Pakistan, Pakistan will retaliate, and as neither side will back down, nuclear weapons could be used as a last resort. While Khan’s even-toned speech was largely hailed outside India, the Indians heard nothing but the threat of another Pulwama coming from the old arch-enemy. But as by far the weaker of the two powers in terms of conventional military strength, Khan is right that Pakistan will be more tempted to use nuclear weapons, which could then prompt a tit-for-tat response from India. You could argue Pakistan’s future course is not for Khan to decide. Invariably, it will be the all-powerful Pakistani military that will call the shots, including on nuclear weapons. Yet his message deserves a patient hearing.
By unilaterally changing the status of Jammu and Kashmir, India has reneged on its promise to the Kashmiris to allow them to decide their own fate. Chances are that the Hindu-Muslim divide in India will further deepen and as Khan pointed out, there is now a real risk of another confrontation between India and Pakistan. China too has already spoken of its displeasure with the change in the status quo in Ladakh, which has now been designated a union territory that will be directly administered by the center—just like J&K.
It is likely that the RAW spooks and senior BJP leaders who descended on Kathmandu some time ago had intimated to Nepali leaders India’s future course in Kashmir and its implications for Nepal. For one, India fears that after the change in Kashmir’s status, antagonized Muslims from there could make their way into Nepal, and use the open border to do harm to India. Kashmiri Muslims have been coming and settling in Nepal since the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, to the perpetual discomfort of the Indian security establishment.
The change in J&K’s status, long backed by the RSS, is indicative that the BJP is less queasy about showing off its saffron hues. It is not inconceivable that the emboldened RSS could make another determined bid for the restoration of Nepal’s Hindu status, if not its monarchy. The immediate neighborhood has certainly been spooked. But so have China and the US and other regional and global powers. (American President Donald Trump’s offer of mediation in Kashmir now appears ill-advised.)
The message is that the new Indian leadership is ready to stake its claim in the world, through hard power if need be. Another barely concealed message is that the new India belongs exclusively to Hindus, and Muslims there will have to be satisfied with second-class status. One thing is for sure: the already troubling level of tensions in South Asia is set to further rise. The dysfunctional SAARC may now be the least of the regional worries O
I guess you hear what you want to hear. Speaking before his parliament on August 6, a day after the Indian government announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan highlighted the urgent need to dial down tensions in the combustible, nuclear-armed region. With the ‘racist’ Modi government determined to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Muslims, there will be more home-made Pulwamas in India, he warned. In that case, India will again attack Pakistan, Pakistan will retaliate, and as neither side will back down, nuclear weapons could be used as a last resort. While Khan’s even-toned speech was largely hailed outside India, the Indians heard nothing but the threat of another Pulwama coming from the old arch-enemy. But as by far the weaker of the two powers in terms of conventional military strength, Khan is right that Pakistan will be more tempted to use nuclear weapons, which could then prompt a tit-for-tat response from India. You could argue Pakistan’s future course is not for Khan to decide. Invariably, it will be the all-powerful Pakistani military that will call the shots, including on nuclear weapons. Yet his message deserves a patient hearing.
By unilaterally changing the status of Jammu and Kashmir, India has reneged on its promise to the Kashmiris to allow them to decide their own fate. Chances are that the Hindu-Muslim divide in India will further deepen and as Khan pointed out, there is now a real risk of another confrontation between India and Pakistan. China too has already spoken of its displeasure with the change in the status quo in Ladakh, which has now been designated a union territory that will be directly administered by the center—just like J&K.
It is likely that the RAW spooks and senior BJP leaders who descended on Kathmandu some time ago had intimated to Nepali leaders India’s future course in Kashmir and its implications for Nepal. For one, India fears that after the change in Kashmir’s status, antagonized Muslims from there could make their way into Nepal, and use the open border to do harm to India. Kashmiri Muslims have been coming and settling in Nepal since the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, to the perpetual discomfort of the Indian security establishment.
The change in J&K’s status, long backed by the RSS, is indicative that the BJP is less queasy about showing off its saffron hues. It is not inconceivable that the emboldened RSS could make another determined bid for the restoration of Nepal’s Hindu status, if not its monarchy. The immediate neighborhood has certainly been spooked. But so have China and the US and other regional and global powers. (American President Donald Trump’s offer of mediation in Kashmir now appears ill-advised.)
The message is that the new Indian leadership is ready to stake its claim in the world, through hard power if need be. Another barely concealed message is that the new India belongs exclusively to Hindus, and Muslims there will have to be satisfied with second-class status. One thing is for sure: the already troubling level of tensions in South Asia is set to further rise. The dysfunctional SAARC may now be the least of the regional worries O
