Submit your Article

 In the past two decades, why has no Chinese president visited Nepal?

China decides on high level visits only after maximum preparation. The visits of Chinese leaders are aimed at achieving specific purposes and objectives. They are very sys­tematic. First, we have to be clear that the Chinese President does not go on pleasure trips. Second, we say Nepal-China relation is prob­lem-free. If so, why such a long gap in such high-level visits? Earlier, we used to blame our political instabil­ity for the delay in such visits. But now there is a stable government. In the past six years, President Xi has already travelled to many other South Asian countries. Let’s make a historical comparison. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping had visited Nepal. I think Deng visited no more than five coun­tries in his life and Nepal was one. Nepal was not a powerful country but he still chose to come here. We have to accept that we have failed to prepare well and set the agenda for such visits.

So there is basically no big agenda for President Xi to sign?

You are correct. Without a specific agenda, what would be the utility of such high level visits?

What could be some specific agendas that President Xi could consider?

The visiting country always has some agendas as per their national interests. They do not come here for our sake. A high-level visit means doing something in mutual inter­est. Though the national interests of Nepal and China do not clash, there have been no high-level visits. The key Chinese interest is national unity and we are fully committed to the ‘one-China policy’. No high-level visit even in the time of stability in Nepal means there is a problem.

Are you hinting that there is some problem with project selec­tion on Nepal’s part?

To some extent. The BRI is a funda­mental policy tool of China’s overall foreign policy. The basic document of the BRI was jointly published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chinese State Council and the Min­istry of Commerce. This means key institutions are involved in the BRI, not only the foreign ministry. Thus the BRI has a component of promot­ing commercial and business inter­ests as well. During Prime Minister KP Oli’s 2018 China visit, several agreements were signed—all of them under the BRI framework. Even the cultural programs are under the BRI framework because you need funds for them. We are failing to properly respond to the Chinese policy. We are yet to finalize the projects under the BRI. Some people say we have to talk about bilateral issues and not the BRI, which means we should only accept grant and assistance from China.

This suggests that we have poor negotiation skills. Look at Malaysia. After Mahathir Mohamad came to power, there were renegotiations on some projects and now they are exe­cuting them. There could be some mistakes but we have to correct them and move forward. We signed the BRI but we are yet to set up any mechanism to implement our agree­ment with China. There is a mech­anism led by the Foreign Secretary but it has thus far been ineffective. There has been no detailed feasibil­ity study on proposed projects. Let us first assure ourselves what we want to do and only then talk about loans, soft-loans or grants. We have not formed any mechanism in a way that the Chinese side understands. We have to understand how the Chi­nese plan, and how their financing modalities and institutions work.

Recently, the Chinese Ambas­sador to Nepal said there was no hurry to bring Chinese rail to Nepal. Why do you think she said that?

It took 50 years for a rail to arrive in Lhasa due to highly technical rea­sons, as the railway tracks were built above permafrost. They needed certain chemicals to keep the per­mafrost from melting. In our con­text, railway and other issues came in response to the Indian block­ade. The Chinese side expected the Nepali side to do environmental study and other groundwork, to no avail. We have to take owner­ship of all projects we want to take forward. We talk like the Chinese will do everything for us. We lack seriousness. We are just making commitments but not showing hon­esty. It is not about the Chinese side giving us something and us accept­ing it gracefully. There should be a sense of ownership. I do not believe the rail project will be built entirely on Chinese grant; Nepal also needs to pony up what little it can.

There are reports that the Chi­nese President would come here within 2019.

I have seen such reports. There are reports that Xi Jinping will visit India in October and he will make a stopover in Kathmandu. But such stopover visit would not send a pos­itive message to the outside world. Earlier Chinese President Hu Jintao did not come to Nepal even though he had raised the issue of green and sustainable development. He knew many things about Nepal but he did not come here.

There are reports that President Xi would visit if there are agree­ments on some big BRI projects.

The agendas should match the level of the visits. The Chinese side takes this visit as an important development in bilateral relations. We have to prepare sufficiently. Big visits should have big agendas and even the media and other sectors should feel the same. It is not only about railways. It will come sooner or later but at the same time we have to think about other connectivity projects, such as roads.

Will geopolitical rivalries affect the prospect of Xi’s visit to Nepal?

Geopolitics is a curious word. Ear­lier, China used to call itself an East Asian country. Now, it calls itself a Eurasian country. This happened due to development and technol­ogy. It means politics is dynamic and technology gives it shape. We have to be clear about the purpose of the visit. It is not only about com­ing and shaking hands. We have to think about our national interest, not what others say. We need not worry about what India or America says. They think from their perspec­tive and promote their interests. We have to think what we can do to promote our national interest. We can also take those countries into confidence when we plan something significant with China. We cannot drive our diplomacy on the basis of what other countries say. We have to develop our own self-confidence.

How do you evaluate the foreign policy priorities of the Oli government?

The problem with us is that we call every issue and agenda our pri­ority. When we present so many issues as our priority, we are dilut­ing our key priority. I remember a statement of former Prime Minister Sushil Koirala. He used to say: ‘Our external engagement begins with our neighbors’. It does not mean we are excluding others. This is a correct policy but we lack mecha­nisms to translate it into action. We have to respond to other countries only after we have sufficient knowl­edge about what they are saying. We need an institutional mecha­nism to deal with challenges and opportunities we face in dealing with other countries. For example, China is very serious about form­ing new mechanisms to deal with new situations.

Who is responsible for setting up those mechanisms in Nepal?

It is the responsibility of the prime minister. If sectorial ministers can­not do anything, the blame goes to the PM. The current prime minister has replaced the king. The king had his own mechanism. The current PM also needs mechanisms to imple­ment his plans effectively. Individual initiatives without strong institu­tional mechanisms to support them would not be sustainable.

There is much debate about the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the BRI. Some say they are compet­ing visions, while others say both could go together.

I went through the Indo-Pacif­ic Strategy Report unveiled by the US Department of Defense. The US Ambassador to Nepal said that it is a ‘partnership’. But it was pre­pared and made public by the Pen­tagon. I read the portion of the doc­ument that discusses Nepal and found many issues related to Nepal Army. Peacekeeping has been men­tioned as a fundamental issue of the IPS and there is a role of the Army in peacekeeping. India has also set up an Indo-Pacific division in its foreign ministry. Our for­eign ministry says Nepal consid­ers the Indo-Pacific as a region not a strategy.

We have to focus on our work without complaining about trivial matters. We can tell the American Ambassador that it is not good to have Nepal in the strategy. We have to talk with him in a dignified manner. Not only with the Americans, we can also talk honestly with China if there are issues with the BRI. Global pow­ers introduce such strategies with their own interests in mind, but how they are implemented here is our choice. They cannot impose their strategies against our will. The IPS is prepared from a defense perspec­tive and the BRI from a development perspective.

Q. Three words to describe yourself?

A. Empathetic. Thoughtful. Direct

.

Q. How would you describe a perfect day?

A. A day when my family is proud of me, work gets done, creative ideas flow, pay-day, puppies.

Q. What does your cheat-diet look like?

A. I don’t eat rice so, “dui thaal bhaat”, mom made.

Q. One word to describe the modeling industry today?

A. Fun.

Q. What’s your hidden talent?

A. I make portraits.

Q. How would you describe style in a sentence?

A. Something that makes you feel good and different and is fun when showing it off.

Q. Which animal would you prefer as your pet?

A. When I adopt, they become family, I don’t call them pets. Dogs, because they’re familiar with human emotions.

Q. What is your alternate career choice?

A. Writer/Director.

Q. Your female celebrity crush?

      A. Lisa Haydon.

How do you evaluate the role of the parliament?

The parliament adheres to certain ideals and principles. The chamber is also involved in knowledge-oriented tasks which should be implemented. Therefore, the parliamentarians have a big role. Among others, the parliament is an institution that holds the government to account. It represents people’s wishes and aspirations, along with its other duties like promulgation of laws and endorsing government’s policy/program. Unlike other state institutions, the parliament has people’s seal.

How can we enhance the role of the parliament in Nepal?

First, the political parties should themselves initiate these steps. But they have their own difficulties and limitations. Political parties select candidates who have the greatest prospect of winning elections as they need sufficient numbers to form government. But they should also select candidates who can enhance the quality of the parliament. At the same time, the candidate selection process should be representative and inclusive. The candidates should be qualified too. In some countries, electoral candidates should have at least a Bachelors degree. In our case, such provisions are not taken seriously.

Who is responsible for training and providing knowledge to lawmakers as many of them are new?

The parties have not realized the importance of an institution which can train lawmakers and impart them with knowledge about parliamentary proceedings. I had initiated the process in 1990 but I did not get any government support. We need a parliamentary center to orient lawmakers on various aspects. For the new lawmakers, training is necessary. How to ask questions in parliament? What type of questions to ask? What decorum to follow? These things matter. Many new lawmakers of the federal parliament have no idea on these issues and they hesitate to ask questions. 

How do you evaluate the role of parliamentary committees? Many of their recent directives to the government have been controversial.

In parliamentary practice, the committees are considered mini-parliaments and they have their own jurisdictions and mandates. But most parliamentary committees are unaware of their actual jurisdictions. Recently, the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee directed a minister to implement its decision but the minister refused to do so. This happened due to lack of knowledge on the part of both the committee and the minister. The committees can give the government suggestions on various matters but it is not their duty to take a final call. Ministers need not do exactly as instructed by the parliamentary committees.

But the recommendations of parliamentary committees are obligatory on the government, are they not?

This is true in principle. But if the government does not take it as an obligation, what can we do? The committees can ask the government to implement their decisions but the parliamentary committees themselves are not executioners. In our case, committees are saying that the government must implement their decisions. In reality, the committees only make recommendations. It is the speaker who should ask the government to implement all the parliament’s decisions. 

After the formation of the two-third Nepal Communist Party-led government, there are reports that the government is trying to influence parliamentary proceedings.

It seems so due to the overwhelming majority of the ruling Nepal Communist Party in the federal parliament. This is not a balanced parliament. If the opposition strength was close to a majority, there would be a balance. Now, the ruling party has an overwhelming majority, while the opposition is far behind in terms of numerical strength. The performance of parliament depends on its composition.  The ruling parties have sufficient majority in all federal and provincial parliaments so there have not been sufficient discussions on several bills. That is why committees are not functioning effectively. On the other hand, the opposition is not dedicated to removing flawed provisions of such bills. The opposition lives with the mentality that as the ruling party has sufficient numbers, it will somehow or other pass just about any bill.

It means the role of the opposition parties has not been satisfactory?

In this scenario, opposition parties should fight in parliamentary committees. When it comes to the content of various bills, ruling party lawmakers are not bothered as they believe any bill tabled by the two-third government will ultimately be endorsed. There is thus carelessness in law-making, a level of anarchy. Parliamentarians should work in the larger interest of people instead of vested interests of political parties. The law prevails upon every citizen. Close scrutiny of all bills should be done at the committee level because that is not possible in full parliament sessions. Similarly, there are only a handful of lawmakers with in-depth knowledge of vital issues. Therefore committees should invite experts to solicit their views on specific topics.

Opposition parties complain that current speaker of the federal parliament, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, is partial and always siding with the ruling parties.

The role of the speaker depends on the composition of parliament. There are two types of speakers. The first type shows an interest in chairing the parliamentary sessions because it is a high constitutional post. The second type seeks to genuinely increase the role of parliament. The second type is more dedicated in maintaining parliamentary values, to give a message to the government that it is obliged to the parliament. The speaker should instill on the prime minister and ministers that they are answerable to parliament. The ministers should be present on time, they should speak on time, and maintain decorum, and the speaker should ensure this. But if there is overwhelming majority of one party, the party naturally expects the speaker to take its side.

Specifically, how do you evaluate the performance of Speaker Krishna Bahadur Mahara?

Mahara does not have a strong willpower to undertake the responsibilities of a speaker. In 1990s, when Girija Prasad Koirala had offered me to pick whatever ministerial portfolio I preferred, I informed him that I would remain in parliament. After my firm stance, he offered me the position of speaker. Some people come with a firm commitment of becoming the speaker of parliament. Some people go there thinking it is a constitutional and dignified position and I should be there. For example, when NC was in the opposition, Ram Chandra Poudel was chosen as the speaker simply because he could then occupy a high post. Many people take my reference as an ideal speaker because I wanted to be a speaker and I acted like a speaker.

Do you mean Mahara only wants to occupy a high position?

He feels that the party instructed him to occupy the chair. His party has an overwhelming majority in parliament and ruling party leaders take his pro-government line for granted. But it is also incumbent upon the speaker to give enough space to opposition parties, even if they are in a minority. He or she has to meet the expectation of opposition parties. At the same time, the speaker has to keep the government from taking arbitrary decisions. I do not see that Mahara enjoying the office, perhaps because he has already occupied the post of deputy prime minister.

In Nepal, there is tendency of obstructing parliament for months on end. What is the international practice?

People elect MPs to do their jobs. The opposition parties’ duty is to register their protest, not stop parliamentary proceedings for a long time. Sometimes, to increase pressure, there could be some disturbance in parliament. But indefinite protest is tantamount to disregarding people’s mandate. Let’s take a recent example. There was no need to obstruct the parliament to ask for a parliamentary investigation into two suspected extra-judicial killings. From human rights perspective, it was a genuine demand. But at what cost?

Is this also indicative of a very weak opposition?

Yes, the role of the opposition parties is weak. The ruling parties have this tendency of neglecting bypassing the opposition with a view that it has a clear majority. This tendency also forced the opposition parties to obstruct parliament because they too wanted to show their strength. But in this period the parliament was totally dysfunctional. The parliament was closed at the time when there were floods and landslides. Several bills could have been discussed and endorsed in this time. Minimum protest is justified but we have to develop a culture of protest without sacrificing the sanctity of the parliament.

1) What is a movie you wish you were cast in?

The movie ‘Junge’ and in the role played by the respected Suraj Singh Thakuri dai.

2) What is your biggest pet peeve?

People misusing words.

3) Two things you love about being an actor?

Support from my fans and the different characters I get to play in movies.

4) A Nepali celebrity you admire and why?

Rajesh Hamal. He is a legend.

5) Do you like modeling or acting more?

I would say I like both. I started my career with modeling, and acting has always been my passion.

6) A movie that has stuck with you?

None.

7) Three important things that are important for a good film?

Content, good direction, and a great team.

8) Most special thing a fan has ever done for you?

All my fans are equally important to me.

9) An advice you would like to give to upcoming actors?

Never give up because everyone has to go through tough times, and struggle at the start. If you believe in yourself, you will reach your destiny and achieve success.

10) What would be your superpower?

Multitasking, haha.