Submit your Article

The handling of the rape charge against the speaker of the federal house Krishna Bahadur Mahara has been appalling. First, the woman, the supposed rape victim, reportedly called the police emergency number ‘100’ to report the rape on the evening of September 29. She subsequently texted several high-ranking government officials informing them of the same. In addition, she gave a video interview to an online news portal where she details physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Mahara and shows his text messages, including one asking her to ‘forget about yesterday’ (referring to the night of the alleged rape.)

Apparently, fearful of filing a case against someone as powerful as Mahara, the police did not collect vital evidence from the woman’s residence immediately. They did so only a day later, after the Nepal Communist Party had asked Mahara to resign from his post of the speaker and an MP. This smacks of the subservience of the Nepali Police to their current political masters. The police, which is yet to recover from the Nirmala Panta-fiasco, blundered once again, but so did other supposedly responsible state organs.

One online news portal interviewed the concerned woman, blurring her face to hide her identity. But the blurring technique was so clumsy, her full face was clearly visible a number of times. Another online portal published her phone number. The Nepali media, and especially the headline-chasing online media, seems unaware of even basic norms of journalism.

The NCP, to its credit, asked Mahara to step down. But, curiously, a day later, the woman withdrew her accusation against Mahara. If her intent was to defame the speaker, she deserves to be punished. If she recanted because she was threatened, that too is a jail-worthy offense. The public also deserves to know if there was some kind of out-of-court settlement between the two parties. In any case, now that it has been established that Mahara, the holder of one of the country’s highest offices, had actually gone to the woman’s residence that night, drunk, that alone makes him unfit to hold any public office in the future.

People these days have so little faith in the state mechanism that even if the truth were reveled tomorrow, few may believe it. Yet that does not absolve the NCP, which voters have overwhelmingly trusted to run the country, of a moral responsibility of getting to the bottom of the incident and making the findings public. Relieving Mahara of his twin responsibilities is only a partial, temporary solution. More important is for people to believe that justice has been done, whoever may be culpable.

Bar the recent Bidya Bhandari-Sher Bahadur Deuba verbal war, the problem is not that people don’t understand the spoken words of senior Nepali Congress leaders. It is that most Nepalis don’t trust these old leaders. The Oli government exhibits a clear authoritarian bent. The economy is wobbly, and the welfare state the left government promised out of reach. There have also been some dubious foreign policy decisions. Yet the main opposition’s criticism of the ruling parties rings hollow. For the opposition’s voice to be so completely ignored both by the government and the people is an unhealthy development for a democracy.

There seems to be no easy fix. The Nepal Communist Party (NCP) got an overwhelming majority in free and fair elections, and will run the federal government at least for another three years. In this time, Nepal’s democratic freedoms could be further curtailed. Yes, besides the Congress and Madhesi outfits outside the government, there is also a free press and a vocal civil society that have been repeatedly pointing out the government’s mistakes. But while PM Oli assures his countrymen he listens to his critics, his government has pretty much gone its own way.

Again, the forces outside the parliament can do only so much. It is primarily up to the opposition parties to hold the government to account. After the recent lovefest between the ruling NCP and the CPC, its Chinese counterpart, Congress leaders accused the NCP of trying to impose a totalitarian system. “Its leaders promise to adhere to the ‘socialist-oriented’ constitution, but they have no clue what socialism is,” senior Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel complained. But that is rich coming from a representative of a party that has completely abandoned its socialist roots.

Moreover, rather than individual Congress leaders making random comments about the authoritarian streak of the federal government, their criticism will be more credible if they all spoke with one voice, and conveyed the same message consistently. They cannot regain their lost credibility overnight. But by firmly standing up for democratic norms and values, and holding the reckless government to account, they will at least make a start in this uphill journey, and keep the country away from a draconian path.

It’s incredible how the political parties that promulgated the new constitution, hailing it as among the ‘best in the world’, have been so disinterested in implementing it. These include the parties now running the federal government, as well as the main opposition. The seventh constitution of democratic Nepal was also the most revolutionary: for the first time people had written their own charter. It was also the constitution that cemented Nepal’s new federal status, marking a decisive break in the country’s 250-year-old history as a unitary state.

The old structure had proven incapable of delegating power and responsibilities down to the grassroots. Without this kind of devolution, it was hard to see the country develop and its people politically and economically empowered. The new constitution provided for three tiers of government: federal, provincial and local. The idea was that the provincial and local governments would act with a high degree of autonomy, and with direct participation of the people at the grassroots. For this they would get enough support from Kathmandu, the federal capital.

Yet the old unitary mindset has been hard to change. The federal officials have been most reluctant to devolve powers. All the important decisions continue to be made in Kathmandu and imposed on the seven provinces and the 753 local units. Shamefully, over 70 percent of the federal budget goes to the federal government, with the rest divided among the local and provincial governments. As the lower level governments are without even basic infrastructure and manpower, this allocation is inadequate—and unjust.

This is an example of the deep chasm between the high aims of the new constitution and their realization. Old unitary demarcations remain, as do the unitary officialdom that often competes for influence with the new provincial and local officials. Despite an overwhelming mandate, the federal government has been unable to make any headway in improving the economy or ensuring that people’s lives and properties are protected. Nor do the historically disadvantaged minorities feel the new charter, or its custodians, work in their interests. The government would do well to pay heed to their legitimate grievances so as to broaden the constitution’s ownership.

As public dissatisfaction mounts, federalism is being blamed for everything wrong in the country of late. But it’s more a case of our political leadership and top bureaucrats refusing to shed their old unitary lens and to transcend self-interest. On this fourth anniversary of the new constitution, its promulgators need to do some soul-searching. Otherwise, the new edifice they are building on it could come crashing down.

Call it the China effect. An old criticism of India-funded projects in Nepal has been their long delays. But as China has stepped up its engagement in Nepal, India seems to have woken up to the urgent need to safeguard its old sway here. The completion of the Motihari-Amlekhgunj cross-border oil pipeline in a record 17 months hints at as much. It is no coincidence India has also expedited works on all its rail projects in Nepal, including the link between Kathmandu and Birgunj.

Some may see this as evidence of an unhealthy geopolitical competition between the two rising Asian giants. But can’t there also be a healthy rivalry between India and China as they look to expand their footprints in Nepal? If India starts completing its projects in Nepal on time, for whatever reason, Nepal only benefits. When the pipeline comes into full operation, it will also meet a crucial goal of the new National Security Policy: forestalling another blockade. The excuse of protests at the border to stop fuel supply to Nepal will no longer work.  

Likewise, Nepal’s relations with any other power should be determined by its national interests and long-term vision. Yet that is not the case. Nepal has signed up to the BRI, and yet it seems clueless about how to benefit from it. It now also finds itself a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, again without a clear understanding of what it entails.  

There is always a subtext in foreign relations. It is unrealistic, even dangerous, to expect outsiders to do things for us pro bono. Nor is that the right way to develop our capacity in executing big projects. Whenever outside help is sought, in cash or kind, Nepal should look to supplement it with its own resources. Yet what we see is a woeful lack of cooperation and coordination among different government entities, which also hampers our foreign relations. Ministries are often working at cross-purposes. The foreign ministry brokers an important bilateral agreement on a big hydro project, only to be later thwarted by the environment ministry. Or the defense ministry clandestinely works on an arms deal, without the knowledge of the foreign ministry.

Kudos to India on the pipeline. But the China effect will only go so far. For long-term benefit, Nepali political leadership needs to spell out what Nepal wants from its bilateral and multilateral partners and then streamline its bureaucracy to achieve those common goals.