Long road ahead for BRB
Former Prime Minister and Coordinator of Naya Shakti Nepal Baburam Bhattarai was recently canvassing the country’s length and breadth. What he saw and heard during this extended tour must have depressed him. Basically, he espied no prospect of a revival of his beleaguered party, which has just a single seat in the federal lower house. Many see Bhattarai as an opportunist who waged a bloody insurgency that took the lives of around 17,000 Nepalis. But as soon as it served his purpose, he ditched the ideology. Others think of him as cold and calculated, and someone missing the common touch.
In the former Maoist party, Bhattarai’s reputation was as an intellectual capable of coming up with the best of ideas and yet someone incapable of building an organization. His tendency to project an intellectual air does not sit well with common folks; many like his ideas but they struggle to trust him. This sad realization must have hit home on his recent cross-country trek. Hence his decision to merge his party with the Upendra Yadav-led Federal Socialist Forum Nepal.
Bhattarai realizes Yadav is the front and center of the new party and he will be playing second fiddle. The new socialist outfit, by fusing the energies of ethnic hill leaders and identity-conscious Madhesi ones, hopes to start a new trend in Madhes-Pahad unity. A wonderful idea, but also an unrealistic one. Big parties like the (former) CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress have always had strong organizations in both Pahad and Madhes. If these forces could not unite the country, there is little hope that the new socialist party with some extremely polarizing politicians in its ranks will fare any better. But Yadav has nothing to lose.
He already has a rock-solid base in Madhes; the new party’s ability to make inroads into the hills would be a bonus. In contrast, Naya Shakti’s hold on both Madhes and Pahad is tenuous. It was a spent force. Bhattarai has never been short of ambition and yet he finds himself in a political wilderness. The new socialist outfit is an unlikely vehicle with which to revive his political career. In a sign of things to come, his erstwhile Naya Shakti colleagues are furious at the new merger that happened without their knowledge, and one which has made them ‘junior members’ in the new party. The road ahead is long and arduous for BRB.
The growth curve
The latest forecast of the Central Bureau of Statistics that the national economy will grow by 6.81 percent this fiscal is encouraging. The above-six percent growth, for the third year in a row, has never been attained in over two decades. This kind of sustainable (and increasing) growth is partly the outcome of political stability. The ending of load-shedding has also boosted our industries and businesses. As tourism picks up after the low of the 2015 earthquake and the subsequent blockade, hotels and restaurants are doing a roaring business. Good rainfall has ensured plentiful harvests.
Thus 6.81 percent growth is something to celebrate, any way you look at it. It has, for instance, contributed to an increase in the annual income of a Nepali by around Rs 14,000 in a year. The proportion of those living under the poverty line is steadily declining. So far so good. But it would be an incomplete assessment of the Nepali economy if we don’t dig deeper into these numbers. A big reason for the high GDP growth is the boom in construction, which is fueled by loans from banks and financial institutions. Such loans also boost vehicle ownership. Economists warn that the economy is overheating because of such unproductive spending, and a crash might be imminent. The good numbers do not reveal the whole picture.
The only way to achieve long-term economic prosperity is to ensure more, and timely, investment in the productive sector: rather than erect credit-supported private apartments, build good roads and airports. Instead of spending most of our foreign reserves on imports, channel more into improving the local business climate. The state should also invest in quality education and healthcare for all Nepalis. But the opposite is happening. Over the past few years, the spending in productive sectors has been half the level of spending in unproductive activities.
While the federal government seems committed to handing out various kinds of benefits and subsidies to the old and the needy, it has made little progress in mass-scale job-creation. Most of our youth in rural areas continue to go abroad in search of well-paying jobs. Yet much of the hard-earned money they send to Nepal is quickly repatriated to pay for our burgeoning imports. A growth of 6.81 percent means there is enough money sloshing around for all kinds of productive investments. Too bad the communist government is busy gloating about its high numbers than in laying down the right economic fundamentals.
The Lankan lesson
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.
Insecure on security
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.
