Submit your Article

Outlawing the Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplob’-led Communist Party of Nepal is justified. The party has, in recent times, acted more like a criminal-cum-terrorist outfit than a political party: spreading terror by detonating bombs in various public places, killing an innocent person, shaking down businesspersons, and reportedly plan­ning the assassination of political leaders after raising a private militia. So long as it doesn’t abandon its ter­ror tactics, there is no point in talking to it. But even then, Prime Minister KP Oli’s ultimatum to the outfit to either surrender within a week or be effectively wiped out was uncalled for.

Expecting Biplob to agree to a humiliating surren­der is highly unrealistic. Instead of issuing such base threats, PM Oli, as head of government, should have been more conciliatory. He should have said the gov­ernment is ready for talks if Biplob puts down arms, now or at anytime in the future. Ultimately, there is no alternative to talking things through, and it is unbe­coming of someone in the prime minister’s chair to spit venom.

In retaliation for the ban, Biplob has announced a series of protest programs, including strikes and bandhs. Although the government claims it can wipe out the party swiftly, the public is rightly skeptical. It will be nigh impossible to stop the kind of hit-and-run attacks from Biplob that had become a signature of the decade-long Maoist insurgency of which he was an integral part. The fear his party has now generated is palpable too. Schools and colleges are already plan­ning to shut down on the days of the protests, and busi­nesses fear a new cycle of extortion.

Again, that the government is acting tough against a group that has adopted terror as its modus operandi is understandable. But if the CPN is ready to disarm, there should always be room for talks. With the govern­ment seemingly committed to a showdown, there will be no incentive for Biplob to give up violence.

There is no room for violence in a civilized society. But peaceful means of dispute resolution should be open for everyone, including Biplob. It is unfortunate that the prime minister has become hostage to par­tisan politics, trying to portray Biplob’s CPN as ‘pseu­do-communists’, apparently in contrast to the ‘real’ ones in the government. Oli should instead be acting in the country’s interest.

As the acrimonious and seemingly nev­er-ending divorce of Great Britain from the EU shows, referendum is a crude political tool. Britons voted to leave the EU despite oodles of evidence that such a separation would hurt the British economy, increase joblessness, and dent the country’s international standing. It may even break the UK apart. But Brexiteers wanted to take the country back to the glory days of the empire, when the world revolved around Great Britain. In the changed world order, this was an impossible dream. Yet the majority let nostalgia trump their better sense.

The 2017 referendum on the independence motion of the Spanish autonomous community of Catalonia was even more fraught. While most people always vote with their hearts, it is even more the case on the kind of emotive issues that referendums evoke. Those who voted for Britain’s exit from the EU ignored all credible economic data to confirm their bias.

In Nepal too the issue of referendum comes up fre­quently. The one time it was held, back in 1980, people voted in favor of retaining the Panchayat system. Now General Secretary of NC Shashank Koirala wants a ref­erendum on the country’s federal, republican and sec­ular status. Meanwhile, despite his recent agreement with the government, CK Raut is still for a referendum to determine if Madhes should remain a part of Nepal.

In either case, the winners of such referendums are likely to be chest-thumping populists rather than those who offer dry logic. Once a referendum is declared, it takes its own momentum, and there is plenty of room for manipulation. Now, seemingly, even ex-king Gya­nendra is looking to make a comeback via such a refer­endum, and the monarchists in Congress and various hues of RPP have his back.

While independence for Madhes is out of question under the current constitution, decisions on referen­dums on the kind of issues Koirala raises should not be taken flippantly either. Rather than saddle the country with another prolonged and costly transition, which such referendums will result in, the effort of all demo­cratic forces should be directed at preserving the post- 2006 gains and helping the country along on its path of peace and prosperity. Koirala conveniently ignores that it was his party under the redoubtable GPK which had taken the lead in establishing the new order. With their desire to turn the clock back, Koirala and his ilk do great harm to their party and country.

In what was a turning point for Nepali tourism, for the very first time, Nepal in 2018 welcomed over a million tourists by air (1.1 million to be exact). The government had long been trying to cross the magical million-mark. Perhaps Nepal could have got­ten there earlier if not for the devastating 2015 earth­quakes and the border blockade later in the year. Bet­ter late than never. Tourist arrivals ticked up again as the country entered a phase of political stability and post-quake rebuilding of destroyed heritage sites and tourist attractions.

This year has brought more good news. In the first two months of 2019, tourist arrivals via air were up 33 percent from the same period last year. Interesting­ly, in February, China (16,205) and Sri Lanka (14,831) sent more tourists to Nepal than did India (14,547). But this may be explained by the fact that more and more Indians are travelling to Nepal by road. In the broader picture, in 2019, the country is set to easily surpass last year’s tally of 1.1 million, and seems well on its way to meeting the new target of over two million tourists in 2020.

Stable politics helps. But the Nepal Tourism Board must also be congratulated for being able to better market Nepal abroad, especially in China. The NTB and the Nepali private sector are also making a new push into European markets. Popular tourist guides like Lonely Planet advising their readers to make ‘exotic Nepal’ one of their new travel destinations was an add­ed boost. Crucially, more foreign tourists are coming at a time when earnings from remittance have stagnat­ed and the broader economy appears wobbly. Steady growth of tourism could at least partially compensate for a slowdown in other sectors.

Nepal earned over $600 million from tourism in 2018. Economists say this figure could easily double if we can improve our air and road transport infra­structures (perhaps starting with timely completion of regional international airports in Pokhara and Bhair­ahawa). Sorting out the perennial labor disputes in hotels and restaurants with more practical and flexible labor laws should be another priority. This is no time to relax. Nepal still ranks far down international tour­ism competitiveness indices, for instance, and it faces greater competition for tourists even within South Asia. There is still much room for improvement.

In handing down a life sentence to Resham Chaud­hary, the federal lawmaker from Kailali district, and 10 others, the Kailali district court made one crucial distinction. It decided that the 2015 killings of eight police personnel and a child in Tikapur, Kaila­li were not part of a political movement but a purely criminal act. It is hard to call the verdict, which has been nearly four years in the making, hasty. Nor is it the final one. Chaudhary can still knock on the doors of higher courts.

But in the meantime all those who believe in the rule of law must respect the verdict. The Rastriya Janata Par­ty Nepal, Chaudhary’s party, denounced it, arguing that the Tikapur incident was purely ‘political’ and accusing the ruling parties of bias against the Tharu lawmaker. As the people of Kailali elected Chaudhary to the fed­eral parliament, even after the police had filed a mur­der case against him, shouldn’t the public mandate be honored? In fact, one condition for the RJPN’s support to the Oli government was Chaudhary’s release from jail (which didn’t happen) and his swearing-in as an MP (which did).

The sequence of events raises troubling questions. Why did the Election Commission accept Chaudhary’s candidacy even after a murder case was filed against him? Why wasn’t the investigation report of the Tika­pur incident made public? And why did the Oli gov­ernment swear in Chaudhary even when he was in jail, making it appear like it was a ‘political case’ all along? Now, what if Kailali and the rest of Madhes again erupts against the ‘unjust’ conviction?

The ruling parties have repeatedly scarified due process for convenience. For instance, with the rul­ing Nepal Communist Party’s near absolute hold on power, President Bidya Devi Bhandari ‘pardoned’ the murder-convict Balkrishna Dhungel. A question will naturally arise: If Dhungel can be pardoned, why can’t Chaudhary? The communist government has also run roughshod over the transitional justice process, by undercutting even the Supreme Court.

If the rule of law was inviolable and there were no double-standards in the treatment of those in power and those outside, Chaudhary’s would have been a more straightforward case. The politicians’ tendency to do what is convenient for them rather than what is right has eroded public faith in all state institutions. Allowing due process to take its natural course in this case would be the best way to restore some of that faith.