Submit your Article

close relations can be easily strained. The cordial people-to-people and government-level ties and the open border between Nepal and India connect the two countries in a way few other neighbors are bound together. Yet the sheer disparity in their sizes and populations also means they can never have a truly reciprocal relation. One marker of this disparity is what crosses (or does not cross) the open border on a daily basis.

In 2015-16, nothing did, as India seemed determined to teach the Nepali leaders a lesson for not honoring its wishes about the new constitution. Today, even though Indian pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables have been found to be harming the health of Nepalis, they are entering Nepal unhindered. Initially, following a recommendation of the Ministry of Commerce, the government had stopped their import. But after pressure from the Indian Embassy, which accused Nepal of imposing ‘non-tariff barriers’ on its goods, the trucks carrying the greens have been allowed back in. (It remains to be seen whether the latest Supreme Court ruling on resuming mandatory testing is enforced.)

India’s business-like approach to this humanitarian concern is deplorable. In the name of protecting its businesses, it is literally playing with the health of millions of Nepalis. Highhanded gestures like these do grievous harm to Nepal-India ties. To be fair, it was always going to be tough on any Nepali government, however strong, to resist the Indian pressure. Even so, the easy cave-in of the Oli government on this life and death issue was disappointing.

There seems to have been no prior consultations with India on the matter. The new provision mandates that all imported foodstuffs be tested for their pesticide levels. Yet there are few functional laboratories on the Nepal-India border areas to do so. The foodstuffs imported from India had started rotting on the stranded trucks. Ideally, Nepal should have first fully equipped these labs before stopping the edibles from India. But there was also no time to think things through as the health of millions of Nepalis was on the line. Now, rather than pointing fingers at each other, the two sides should sit down and find an amicable solution—and soon. After only just coming back on an even keel, Nepal-India relations cannot afford another rupture. Nor is it right to force people to keep consuming poison

Nepali cable TV distributors are being disingenuous when they say end customers will be saddled with extra charges if the federal parliament passes a recently registered Advertisement Bill. The bill bars out-of-country paid TV channels from broadcasting foreign advertisements. As getting clean feed from paid international TV channels will cost them more, the cable operators argue, they will have no option but to pass on the added cost to their viewers. But then Nepali cable TV viewers are already paying high surcharges, which should more than make up for the puny increase in cable distributors’ costs.

With the passage of the bill, foreign ads on cable channels will be replaced by Nepali ones, to the benefit of many constituencies in the country. Nepali advertisers will be buoyant as all TV ads for foreign products will have to be made in Nepal. Nepali ads will also have more slots on international channels. The Nepali ad industry is projected to grow by at least 20 percent as a result. After all, why should foreign products get free advertisements on Nepali TV? Not only does it lead to a loss of market for Nepali advertisers, it also encourages Nepalis to pick foreign advertised products over domestic unadvertised ones, to the determent of the already struggling economy.

While the Nepali ad industry is still in its infancy, its revenues continue to shrink as more and more people move online for news and entertainment. The problem is that there isn’t much money in online advertising. At the same time, with the economy facing a severe liquidity crunch, Nepali producers and industries are cutting back on their advertisement budgets for newspapers and television. On the other hand, the multinationals operating in Nepal have not had to spend a single rupee as their ads are already transmitted through pay TV for free.

The clean feed policy is a boon for all Nepali content creators. The quality of our advertisements will improve as more money enters the industry. Local products will be more competitive. The stagnant Nepali media will see a fresh inflow of cash. Cable operators have no case.

 The federal government and its head can learn many things from the recent Guthi bill fiasco. One is that decisions with far-reaching conse­quences should be made only after extensive consultations with key stakeholders. Frankly, in its year and a half in office, the federal government, and Prime Minister KP Oli in particular, have acted like a law onto themselves. PM Oli makes vital decisions without informing senior leaders of his own party, much less the opposition parties. The advice of a small coterie of party hacks seems enough.

Broad consultations are at the heart of the democrat­ic process. But for the self-described democrat who fought autocracy half his life, Oli seems to have inter­nalized some authoritarian tendencies himself. Again, seldom does he consult other experts and seek a sec­ond opinion. Take his recent Europe trip, which turned out to be a disaster. The prime minister was keen on visiting Europe and shoring up his international image even as there had been no preparations. The expected agreements with France and the UK could not mate­rialize; the heads of the state of these two European powers did not even bother to see him.

Had the prime minister consulted some foreign pol­icy experts, or even read an oped or two on the topic on the eve of his Europe trip, he could have figured out that instead of buttressing his international image, the meaningless tour would have just the opposite effect. More important, it would harm the standing of the country he represents. But just like he did not bother to consult the Guthiyars—the age-old custodians of the country’s precious heritage—before introducing the Guthi bill, the self-assured prime minister did not see the need to seek expert advice on his foreign travel.

The forced withdrawal of the Guthi bill is possibly the biggest blow to the prime minister’s seemingly unassailable image. He perhaps does not realize that if he continues on his unilateral course, the press, the opposition parties, the intellectuals, and hundreds of thousands of his voters—could all be alienated. It is a reminder that in a democracy you can rule only by a broad consensus and trying to ram through unpopu­lar measures invariably backfires. Perhaps the retreat on the Guthi bill will make PM Oli realize the power of the collective.

 Nepal’s civil liberties are hard-won. During the 104 years of the Rana rule, there was no such thing as freedom of expression for common people. Education was out of their reach and foreign travel completely banned. When the Ranas were forced out, there was a brief respite from authoritarianism in the 1950s, before King Mahen­dra again usurped civil rights in 1960. It would be 30 more years before the gradual opening up of political and social space again. Finally, following another long struggle, absolute monarchy was formally abolished in 2008 and complete sovereignty vested in the people.

As people would from then on be governed solely by their representatives, never again would civil liberties be curtailed, it was hoped. Yet more than a decade later there continues to be a palpable threat to free speech. The two-third communist government of KP Oli has been coming up with one regulation after another to curb press freedom. It censors the internet. It makes a sweeping decision on ownership of traditional guthis in the country without even consulting the stakehold­ers. Most recently, it arrested a comedian on the dubi­ous charge of stepping on public sensibilities.

The communists the world over and throughout history have been high on discipline. (Lenin famous­ly wanted to maintain ‘iron discipline’ in his Bolshevik Party.) They like structures. But it is difficult to give defi­nite structures to a diverse society like Nepal’s. In fact, any democratic society is riddled with contradictions, and the more diverse it is, the more contradictions there will be. But rather than taking it as a natural part of the democratic process and trying to manage these contradictions in a democratic way, the federal govern­ment seems intent on imposing its own vision of a silo-like, monochromatic society.

Voted in with an overwhelming mandate, the ruling communists claim unsullied democratic credentials. They are no Bolsheviks of yesteryears, they protest. Having long fought for the cause of democracy, they claim to be aware of their duty to protect people’s free­doms. They rather blame the recent public backlash against the government as part of the opposition’s dirty politicking. But no one’s fooled. Rather than issuing empty promises to safeguard people’s rights and free­doms, the government would do itself and the coun­try a huge favor if it refrained from restricting people’s constitutional right to free speech. If they want to be heard, it is the democratic government’s duty to listen to them. The undemocratic way of trying to muzzle them is self-sabotage.