Submit your Article

The April 21 attacks in Sri Lanka, which has killed at least 359 people as of this writing, was a brutal reminder, if we needed any, that terrorism knows no bounds. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility. Unconfirmed reports suggest the suicide attacks targeting the Christian community and foreign tourists in Sri Lanka were in ‘retaliation’ for the March 15 killings of 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand. Whatever the case, there can now be little doubt that religious terrorism has become a global menace—and no country can claim to be immune from it.

Why did the Islamic State choose Sri Lanka—a rela­tively poor country that is not involved in any anti-Mus­lim mission anywhere in the world—to target Chris­tians, who make up under 8 percent of the Lankan population? Most likely because of its weak security. The small island state could not forestall the suicide bombings even though Indian intelligence agencies had given them ample prior warnings. Perhaps the Sri Lankan authorities felt that in the post-LTTE era they had nothing to fear from terrorists of any kind.

Nepal’s own security status is fragile, what with the open border and various semi-political armed groups operating in the country. An act of international terror­ism here is not inconceivable.

During the third SAARC Summit in Kathmandu in 1987, member states had signed the ‘Regional Conven­tion on Suppression of Terrorism’. Yet there has been little progress in advancing such cooperation, as was made clear by the Lankan bombings. With the SAARC now in a coma, there is little hope of progress. This is dangerous. In this interconnected world, no single country can control the scourge of terrorism on its own, as terror groups use increasingly sophisticat­ed ways to maximize death and destruction. Great­er regional cooperation on terrorism has therefore become mandatory. (Perhaps the BIMSTEC provides a better way forward.) Nepal must also strengthen its anti-terror resolve. The 2016 National Security Policy had listed ‘prevention and control of terrorism’ as one of Nepal’s strategic objectives. The public deserves to know if there has been any progress on this front.

There are other risks of taking terrorism lightly. On the pretext of controlling anti-terror activities, big powers may try to muscle their way in. Terror groups may also foment unrest by trying to divide the recently declared secular state along religious lines. April 21 was a wake-up call. It’s a terrible tragedy that so many of our fellow South Asians had to die for it.

The government’s reluctance to release the new National Security Policy (2019), endorsed by the cabinet on March 18, is both intriguing and troubling. The policy, consid­ered the country’s ‘second constitution’, is by nature a consensual document, prepared after extensive consultations with multiple stakeholders. But only a select few drafted the policy under the leadership of Defense Minister Ishwar Pokhrel, and without consul­tations with other important stakeholders, including the main opposition Nepali Congress. What does the government have to hide?

We can make a few educated guesses. Reported­ly, the document is rather political: the ruling party’s slogan of ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepalis’ finds repeated mention in it. Mixing partisan politics with national security is never wise. Second, the new policy apparently gives the Nepal Army a predominant role in national security, while undercutting the roles of other security organs. (Recently, the Oli government had also amended the National Security Act to give the prime minister the power to deploy the army under ‘special circumstances’.) The two police forces feel left out.

Third, the new policy reportedly mentions “block­ade” as a major security threat to Nepal, in reference to the 2015-16 Indian blockade. It is to be avoided at all cost, including perhaps by enhancing connectiv­ity with China. The fear is that India may not be too pleased with this mention. But these are lame excus­es for not consulting vital stakeholders and preparing such an important document on the sly.

The underhand manner in which the whole affair has unfolded does not befit a government with an overwhelming public mandate. The centralization of powers in the PMO and the army will be inimical to the health of the nascent federal republic. Such centraliza­tion will make provincial governments uneasy, and lend credence to the voices of those who believe the Oli government is on the path of authoritarianism. Its recent crackdown on press freedom and curtailment of civil liberties have been hardly assuring. To allay doubts about its intent, the government should imme­diately make the policy public and take it to the nation­al parliament for further discussions. The National Security Policy is not just the government’s policy but also a guiding charter that affects every section of the society. Nepalis deserve to know what is in it.

The recently appointed 18 High Court judges have taken their oath of office. The five new judges nominated for the Supreme Court will face a parliamentary hearing in the next few days. Yet the storm of controversy the Judicial Coun­cil’s judge nominations kicked up refuses to subside. Rightly so. At stake is no less than the judiciary’s inde­pendence and impartiality.

The all-powerful Nepal Communist Party runs the federal government. Likewise, Nepali Congress is easi­ly the single biggest opposition party. Even as the two parties differ on myriad other issues, they were ready to divide the judicial nominations among themselves, making a mockery of the concept of parliamentary check and balance. The Congress likes to rail against ‘creeping authoritarianism’ of the communist govern­ment. Yet few take it seriously because on matters of mutual interest, it readily colludes with members of the same government. No wonder PM Oli so easily dis­misses the opportunistic NC leaders.

With a clear majority of political nominees, the composition of the Judicial Council that nominates high-level judges is flawed too. In its current form, it is hard to see it acting impartially and picking judges based on their qualification and competence rather than their closeness to this or that political party. A recent conference of judges rightly asked for the coun­cil’s rejigging so that those from a judicial background are in the majority.

What is happening right now is state capture by stealth, as the ruling alliance slowly tightens its grip on all levers of power. The compromised judiciary, instead of being neutral arbiters of disputes, including the con­stitution’s sole interpreter, will increasingly be behold­en to their political masters, to grave consequences for the health of Nepali democracy.

The NCP already has an absolute hold on the execu­tive and the legislative and only the judiciary seemed capable of holding it to account. But on current form we will see an increasingly pliable judiciary that has no authority besides rubberstamping the government position on vital issues. The parliamentary hearing committee can still stop this travesty of justice at the apex court. Even though the committee too is packed with members of the ruling alliance, people’s chosen representatives are expected to act in the public inter­est. Otherwise, why have such hearings at all?

In retrospect, almost everything seems obvi­ous. The Meteorological Forecasting Divi­sion of the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology should obviously have better pre­dicted the devastating windstorm that swept across Bara and Parsa districts on March 31, killing at least 28 people, destroying 1,000 homes, and rendering 1,200 locals homeless. Why didn’t the division warn on time, even as its Indian counterpart had come up with clear warnings about severe weather events around the same area that day? Our weather center is incompe­tent—it’s tempting to conclude.

But as tragic as the loss of human lives and proper­ty has been, things are not so straightforward. What happened on March 31 was unprecedented. Yes, our weather folks could have been better prepared, but when the weather deteriorates so fast, and over such a limited area, useful predictions are hard to make, even with the best of equipment and manpower. And even if there had been such a warning, would people have heeded it? After all, India’s better warning systems could not prevent the death of 42 people from severe storms in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan last year.

Scientists expect the number of extreme weather events in the world to keep increasing, reaching dou­ble the current levels by the close of the 21st century. Anthropogenic climate change is largely to blame. It’s a bitter irony that smaller countries like Nepal and Bangladesh that are likely to face the brunt of climate disasters can do little on their own to limit the damage. Of course, that does not mean we should be fatalistic and do nothing. We can improve our weather forecast­ing systems, for instance, by quickly installing all three of the proposed radar stations around the country. We should also help those of lesser means to build sturdier houses that can better withstand extreme weather.

Rather than panic about our likely failure to pre­dict the next big one, there is a need for a sober anal­ysis of what is realistically possible to forecast in an increasingly unpredictable global climate system. The US says up to 200 million Americans are at an imminent risk of flooding in their communities in the upcoming hurricane season. Hardly reassuring. Euro­pean weather-watchers are bracing for an equally unpredictable summer. So let us be better prepared. Let us also make a vigorous case for mitigating global warming with the big polluters, for our own good and for the good of the planet.