Submit your Article

Q. A question you wish more people would ask of you?

A. ‘What is the reason for your happiness?’

Q. Your alternate career choice?

A. Air hostess.

Q. What is one thing you do to cheer yourself up?

A. Lately, spend more time with my son.

Q. One most misunder­stood thing about you?

A. That I am full of myself.

Q. You were star-struck when you met?

A. Sarun Tamrakar, my hus­band.

Q. The thing people would be surprised to know about you?

A. That I am family-oriented.

Q. If you could have coffee with one Nepali celebri­ty, who would it be?

A. Lemi, the make-up artist

Q. Words that keep you motivated?

A. ‘Keep doing what you can do without expecting anything in return’.

Q. Something you would tell your younger self?

A. I shouldn’t have left my parents to go overseas at such young age.

Q. Would you say you are a better wife or a better mother?

A. Better mother.

The constitutional deadline for promulgating laws loom ever closer, but the government is yet to table all the bills in the parliament. Neither is lawmaking transparent, nor do parties seems focused on the contents of these bills. There are already indications that several provisions are against the spirit of the constitution. And there are concerns about the role of the National Assembly (NA), the upper house of federal parliament: Is it more than a rubberstamp for the lower house? Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Radheshyam Adhikari, a senior advocate and an assembly member from the Nepali Congress, on a wide range of issues related to law-making and the assembly’s role therein.

How do you characterize the current law-making process?

The government has expressed its commitment to meet the statutory deadline—first week of March—for formulating or amending laws in line with the new constitution. But the way the federal parliament is functioning indicates that the commitment will not be fulfilled. The National Assembly meets just once a week, which means it does not have enough business.

Can you update us on the progress so far on formulating new laws and amending old ones?

There are some problems. The government has introduced dozens of laws under a single basket. For example, it has brought a proposal seeking to amend 57 laws simultaneously. Such a working style does not allow a broad cross-section study of laws and the monitoring of the provisions that could affect each other. We had a bitter experience while formulating laws concerning the implementation of the fundamental rights of citizens. We were compelled to endorse 11 laws forwarded by the House of Representatives (HoR) without examining even a single word therein. Five laws forwarded by the NA were endorsed by the HoR in a similar manner. Such a scenario shows there’s no point in having a bi-cameral house. Passing laws in this way will create problems. 

Why, unlike in the past, have lawmakers not been consulted on the law-making process?

There are two aspects to it. One, we have an in-built system that ensures checks and balances, but the system is weak. Two, we can consult various stakeholders when we have time, but now we are running out of time because of our tendency to table bills in the House at the eleventh hour seeking their early passage. There has been some consultation on some issues of public concern, such as the citizenship bill. However, we are going to formulate around 300 laws, each with several stakeholders. On some laws, there hasn’t even been a minimum level of consultation.  

It is ill intent or sheer negligence on the government’s part?

One reason is the looming constitutional deadline. Another is the incapacity of our state mechanisms. I refer not only to the performance of this government, but to our weak state mechanisms that have been in place for long. We have a dearth of human resources in state mechanisms. The manpower shortage is acute in the Ministry of Law, the Parliament Secretariat and the Nepal Law Commission, which are key bodies in the lawmaking process. We have also been unable to use the existing manpower. 

But it’s also true that laws have been formulated in a careless manner. For example, there was very little discussion in the preliminary stage among the concerned agencies, such as the cabinet’s bill committee and the relevant ministry. As I said, our in-built system is so flawed that it cannot handle these issues efficiently. Now, there are fears that only about 20 to 30 percent of the legislation will be made by the parliament and the rest of the lawmaking authority will gradually be transferred to the government. Lack of vigilance will further weaken the parliament.

Could you give us an example of the declining role of the parliament in the law-making process?

For example, when a bill with, say, 17-18 sections is tabled in the parliament, the bill will be formed in a way that allows the government the final say over 11-12 sections, which means granting more legislative powers to the government.

This means many legal provisions would be further elaborated by regulations and directives, which are issued by various government ministries and departments. By endorsing incomplete laws, the parliament is gradually transferring authority to the government or the bureaucracy. The parliament can monitor these processes, but it cannot perform all oversight tasks.

That is why we are pushing for having a substantive part of the bills endorsed by the parliament. However, very few are floating this idea, as the ruling party has a majority and we are not in a position to challenge it.

Why is the opposition not paying enough attention to the content of the bills?

It is partially true that the opposition has not paid sufficient attention to overall lawmaking.  This is because we are focused on other issues. Through our policies, we have to present ourselves in a different light than the government. But we are centered on personal issues and agenda. Our main task is law-making, and we should get involved in this process in a thorough manner. But this is not happening. We have told our party leadership to form departments or a shadow cabinet and entrust them with the responsibility to scrutinize the lawmaking process in both the chambers.

Could you talk a bit about what is happening with the Passport Bill?

The bill on passports contains some flawed provisions. After the political change in 1990, getting a passport became easy. People get a passport primarily to visit other countries. Issuing passports easily led to more foreign trips in the past three decades. Although this has some drawbacks, the benefits outweigh the costs. The bill tabled in the parliament has many ‘if and buts’ in several sections, which can curb access to a passport.

For example, the proposed bill says that people involved in money laundering would be denied passports. The government itself files cases related to money laundering. People’s passports cannot be seized on the basis of cases filed by the government. It is up to the court to control the movement of people facing money laundering charges, but the government cannot seize passports. If someone is convicted of money laundering, we would not object to such provisions. But we cannot deny passports on the basis of cases filed in the court. Such problematic provisions need to be amended. 

What about the bill on the management and regulation of advertisements?

There are a couples of reasons behind our opposition to the bill on the regulation of advertisements. Our first logic is that the provisions of criminal offence are not applicable to the issues related to publishing and broadcasting advertisements. It is very simple; it should be a civil offence. 

Our second concern is about the provision of freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right. Also objectionable is a non-bailable provision with a five-year sentence. So the bill in its current form is hostile to freedom of expression and it intends to criminalize offenders. You can regulate, but not control, advertisements. And you certainly cannot make people infringing advertisement regulations criminals.  

There are confusions about the functions and duties of the National Assembly. Could you please help us understand it better?

We are going to squander an opportunity to exploit the assembly’s potential. We haven’t had a serious discussion on how to make good use of the NA. If we continue with the current process of endorsing the bills, there is no need for two chambers. Because it has mayors from the local level and those elected from provincial assemblies as members, the NA could have played a vital role in making the federal system more effective and result-oriented. It could be a mediator between the government and various federal structures.

The NA’s leadership should take up these issues. We have raised them in the parliament, but our voice is not strong enough to take a concrete shape. There is growing dissatisfaction that the provincial governments are being denied the powers granted by the constitution. This is where the assembly could play a vital role. It can question the government about this, and disseminate the response to the provincial and local levels. It is a political process.

Are there conflicts between constitutional provisions and the role that the assembly is playing?

There is a set of procedures for passing bills from parliament. The money bills directly go to the HoR, and it is its exclusive right. The feedback we provide on this bill could be accepted or rejected by the house. Irrespective of our position, the house can forward this bill to the President for authentication. Other bills could be registered in both the houses and there are certain procedures mentioned in the law. If we do not get an additional role from a legislative perspective, the NA loses its relevance.

The assembly can play an important role in the lawmaking process, as it can study the laws, find loopholes and ways to plug them. For example, within a year, the Ministry of Agriculture has introduced 20 directives that are being implemented as law. Of the 20, as many as 11 directives have not mentioned the law on which they are based. These are serious issues that require a strong leadership to address. We have three levels of government, all of which are making laws. But we do not have a place where the laws of all three levels can be deposited so that they can be later studied. The federal upper house could be such a place.

There are record-keeping tasks as well, but we still lack sufficient infrastructure to carry them out. Our parliament doesn’t have a record of the laws it has passed. We don’t have all the documents in one place. We can push the assembly to perform these tasks. Lawmaking is only a small part of the NA’s responsibilities. If efficiently run, it can play a huge role in assisting the ongoing process of state restructuring.  

You see unsatisfied with the current role of the National Assembly?

Yes, I am not satisfied with its performance so far. If the NA continues functioning this way, it is better to dissolve it. Because we are not in a position to interfere in the law-making process, there is currently a wasteful duplication of effort. If we need this institution, we have to prove its utility.

Bhaskar Koirala, the Director of Nepal Institute of International and Strategic Studies (NIIS), is an old China hand. He is a keen observer of the strategic competition among big powers in Nepal. Kamal Dev Bhattarai caught up with Koirala for his insights on Nepal’s foreign policy, the new rumpus over Venezuela and Nepal’s relations with China and the US.

How do you evaluate the Oli government’s foreign policy in the past one year?

The country is still in transition and even senior leaders are not sure which direction it is headed in. In this transitional phase, the leadership is weak, and there is a lack of clarity on the country’s foreign policy objectives. There are fundamental disagreements on what kind of foreign policy Nepal should pursue. So I do not know how you can claim success in the conduct of foreign policy. We can take the most recent example of Venezuela, and use it as a benchmark to determine the quality of foreign policy processes in Nepal. If you go back a bit and try to understand how this government has defined its relationship with China, India and the US, I see a lack of clarity.

Why do you think that is the case?

There is no creativity in the overall process. A lot of things could have been initiated in relationships with India, China and the US. But you do not see that happening. After one year, what is the result? Where is the government headed? How has the government defined its foreign policy? 

You referred to Venezuela. How has its handling by the ruling party and the government been?

Lately, the government seems embroiled in the Venezuela issue. Many were surprised by this; no one had expected happenings in that country to have reverberations in Nepal. It started with a press statement by a co-chairman of the ruling party. Some say it is an ideological issue and the communist party had to stand by it. But I think this is an example of negligence in the conduct of foreign policy. But let us not blow things up. There was similar negligence when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was supposed to mention ‘condolences’ instead of ‘congratulations’ while sending a message to Indonesia after it was struck by a devastating cyclone. Venezuela’s case was one of similar negligence, no more. Nepal does not have a substantive relationship with Venezuela.

Do you espy China’s hand behind Dahal’s statement on Venezuela?

I think that’s totally ridiculous. I do not think China would dictate to another country what kind of foreign policy statement it should release. I certainly do not believe, unlike what some media outlets have suggested, that China somehow coaxed Nepal into taking this position.

It seems that the government’s position has created some friction in our relations with the US.

It has created a serious problem in bilateral relations with the US. How long its impact will last, I do not know but it seems to be a big issue. In a recently held diplomatic briefing of the government, the US Ambassador to Nepal was missing. The US has said that the investment summit that Nepal is going to organize in March is premature. Remember, the statement on Venezuela was signed by a co-chairman of the ruling party and on the party’s letter pad, and it was backed by the Foreign Ministry later. That is not how foreign policy issues should have been handled. Even small negligence can lead to a serious crisis.

Talking about the Americans, how important are Nepal-US ties?

The Nepal-US relations have been very important over the past 70 years. Recently, Minister for Foreign Affairs Pradeep Gyawali visited the United States. At a recent program in Vietnam, I met Alice Wells, the US Assistant Deputy Secretary of State, who gave examples of how the Indo-Pacific region is becoming more and more important for them. She said the $500 million grant to Nepal under the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a part of their overall Indo-Pacific Strategy.

The MCC does two things: road maintenance and construction of transmission lines. Roads are already there and the Americans help repair them. Nepal has huge potential in hydropower, so the US is helping Nepal stand on its own feet. So, you can look at it in those terms as well. And you do not have to see it as the US trying to contain China from here. The US is a big power. As a relatively small country in this region between two larger states, Nepal should have its own identity. Nepal should stand on its own feet and should be independent. 

I find the concept of the US Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) interesting. Long before the earthquake, the US helped with the conservation of our temples through the AFCP. So, the US is trying to help Nepal to preserve its identity in this age of rapid globalization; maybe it thinks Nepal’s identity is being diluted. The US is helping us because it lost many aspects of its culture to modernization. They want to help us preserve our identity.

But there are views that China is concerned about Nepal cultivating closer ties with the US.

We are confining ourselves to a certain narrative. As someone who’s been interested in Chinese foreign policy for the last 15 years, I do not think China would be concerned if Nepal develops a closer relationship with the US and deepens its relationship with India, so long as these relations do not hurt its core interests. So long as its interests aren’t affected, China would be happy to see Nepal develop a multifaceted relationship with the United States. 

There was much talk about Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s visit to the US. How did you see it?

When the then Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Nepal 17 years ago, he did not specifically come here to meet our foreign minister and discuss bilateral issues or to talk about how Nepal had an important role in the US regional strategy. Powell had come here as a part of a world-wide tour after 9\11 to garner Nepal’s support on the war on terror. Gyawali’s recent visit is very important because such a visit took place after a gap of over 17 years. I do not know when the two countries’ foreign ministers had met before Powell’s visit.

What was the outcome of our foreign minister’s trip to the US?

Although Gyawali’s visit was a very important platform to cultivate relations with the United States, we were not able to capitalize on it. Maybe it was also the fault of the foreign ministry that didn’t know how to present the visit to the Nepali public, or to other international powers. It was not like Nepal had to sign on a dotted line that it was now subscribing to the Indo-Pacific Strategy. I do not see why Nepal could not take part in discussions on the concept of Indo-Pacific. There could be, for instance, discussions on how Nepal can contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region.

We can move ahead in far more positive, constructive and creative ways rather than simply saying Nepal is neutral and implying that the Indo-Pacific Strategy is directed at China and Nepal cannot jeopardize the BRI.

The government lost an opportunity. The idea of Indo-Pacific is not contradictory to the Belt and Road Initiative. Even international media are presenting the two as mutually exclusive ideas. We can reconcile the two broad foreign policy concepts, one coming from China and another from the US.

How do you observe Nepal’s evolving relations with China?

It is headed in a positive direction. I frequently visit bordering areas such as Kerung and Hilsa. China is developing infrastructures along its border with Nepal. It shows how much importance China attaches to its relations with Nepal. We do not have the same level of infrastructure on the Nepali side. There is hardly any movement on our side. Bordering areas on our side do not have electricity. For example, police cum administrators are working without electricity in Hilsa, which is an important place. Hilsa is not connected with roads to the district headquarters. We can’t even get electricity from China, even though the locals want it desperately. There has not been any initiative to bring electricity from China to these areas. There is a lack of clarity. Pretty much the same could be said about our bilateral relations.

The BRI process in Nepal seems stuck. Then there is that talk of a debt trap.

Yes, obviously a country like Nepal, which is going through a transition and which is much weaker than China, India or the US, should be cautious. But this is just one narrative. We have to avoid the kind of entanglements seen in other countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Everyone is talking about a debt-trap. But one narrative cannot define Nepal’s relationship with China. There are other bilateral issues.  Around 7,000 Nepali students are studying in China. There are 65 weekly flights between Kathmandu and various Chinese cities. They are important for boosting our economic relationship. Tourism is another area that can enhance economic relations.

But there are some structural problems between the two countries. There have been discussions on railway connectivity and people are very excited. But there is no road connectivity. We have not talked to the Chinese about ensuring our agriculture products’ access in their market. Our government authorities have not sat down with their Chinese counterparts to discuss and settle this issue. This is a glaring weakness on the part of our government. There are many examples of this relationship moving forward but there are also counter-signs. Take the example of the ring road in Kathmandu. We should take it in a positive way because it is a significant piece of infrastructure. Rather than indulging conspiracy theories, we should be thankful to the Chinese government. We can plant trees and manage cycle lanes there on our own. Again, there are multiple narratives. We should try to understand those narratives.

How does Nepal manage the strategic competition between the US, India and China?

We talked about the railway from China, which is an extraordinary development. The Nepali leadership wants to show it to the public. See this is how our relations are progressing! But the Nepali leadership has not taken the initiative to take India into confidence. We have a 1,700 km-long open border with India. It is a historical fact, whether you like it or not. Our border with China, on the other hand, is closed. Trade relations between India and China are growing and there are frequent interactions between them. They also have serious disagreements on security matters. How you allay Indian concerns about this railway from China? Is it not the responsibility of our leadership?

We have to be sensitive while dealing with this delicate matter. In sum, we have to take India and China into confidence. That is the only way to move forward.

Former prime minister and ex-Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai is these days busy spreading and strengthening the organiza­tional base of his Naya Shakti Party, which he founded in July 2016. He believes old political forces are incapable of bring­ing about the kind of complete socio-economic transformation that will help Nepal become a first-world country, and hence his new party. A federal MP from Gorkha, Bhattarai is also a close observer of Nepali econ­omy and foreign policy. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhatta­rai caught up with him to dis­cuss the performance of the Oli government, Naya Shakti and the recent split in Bibeksheel Sajha Party.

 How do you evaluate the performance of the Oli govern­ment that has now been in place for over 11 months?

The government presented some statistics in the parliament and claimed significant progress in dif­ferent areas. That could be partially true. But people expect more than gradual changes. They want a quan­tum leap from an under-developed, backward economy to an advanced one in the shortest possible time. By that yardstick, the government has failed.

What in your view accounts for the government’s poor performance?

There could be several factors. First, there is the question of polit­ical vision. The political leadership should have an objective and scien­tific vision to guide the country to a certain goal within a given time. The prime minister makes vacuous state­ments, and does not seem to have a concrete vision, plan and program. Second, our political leaders were good at leading political revolution and making political sacrifices. But I think they lack the expertise on economic, social and international issues in order to pursue a viable plan for the country’s development.

But even if our political leadership do not have those qualities, they should be able to mobilize the tal­ents in the country. Why not have a team of experts to advise on crucial issues? Third, our political leaders have made huge sacrifice in their life, and spent several years in jail or underground. By the same token, they felt they had the liberty to rule as they pleased. This led to bad gov­ernance and rampant corruption. Because of these factors, the gov­ernment has been unable to deliver.

 Earlier you talked about making a quantum leap. Could you elaborate?

We are still a least developed country with a per capita income of around $1,000. The world average is about $10,000. We are way behind the rest of the world. To make a leap from third world status to first world status, you need rapid economic development. In my understanding you should have double-digit growth for at least two decades to make that jump. That is the quantum leap I was talking about.

But that has not been possible in the past three decades. What makes you think we can achieve that now?

Earlier, our agenda was political revolution. As we could not com­plete our revolution in one go, we had to make repeated attempts: in the 1950s, the 1990s and again in 2006. We spent most of the past half century on different phases of politi­cal revolution. Now, with the prom­ulgation of the new constitution, this political revolution is over. We have an elected government with a two-third majority. Now, it is time for the political leadership to deliver on the economic front. It is possible if there are concrete vision and plans.

How do you see the emergence of new political forces like Naya Shakti, Sajha and Bibeksheel?

With the start of the 21st century, people were saying we had entered a phase of the fourth industrial revo­lution, brought about by digital, bio­logical and economic revolutions. So old ideologies and political forces are not going to work. We will have to devise a new political program, and we need new political parties to carry out the new agenda of the new political era. In that sense, we are trying to build alternative political forces that will go beyond the dog­mas of capitalism and communism.

With this view, we started the Naya Shakti Nepal party. Bibekshel and Sajha also came up. What hap­pens in history is that at the start of a new phase, different tendencies and groups sprout. Ultimately either they coalesce or one of them swal­lows the rest. In Nepal’s case, two Nepali Congress parties were estab­lished at the same time. Ditto with our first communist forces. Even in the case of the regressive royalist party, two Rastriya Prajatantra par­ties were established on the same day. New alternative political forces will also follow the same rule.

 Why do you think the Bibekshel Shaja Party split? Is it part of the same evolutionary process you talk about?

Yes. My contention is that Bibek­sheel and Sajha were based on differ­ent political and ideological planks. Their political backgrounds were also different. In my understanding, Bibeksheel leaders were more inno­cent and committed youths who wanted to develop a new political force through people’s movements and campaigns. Therefore, they attracted the educated youth. On the part of Sajha, old profession­als and retirees came together and thought that would be enough to create a political force. Even after the split, with good guidance, these two parties could be a part of the new political firmament, a viable third force we are trying to create.

Our party Naya Shakti Nepal start­ed on a firm ideological and political ground, with a five-point principle of equitable development, participa­tory democracy, good governance, balanced geopolitics and participa­tory socialism. Unfortunately, since we had to face elections within a year of the party’s formation, we could not spread our organizational roots in rural areas, and in urban areas the space was already occu­pied by other forces. In the next election, there will be a repolariza­tion of political forces and we will emerge as a strong alternative force to the NC and the NCP

In a separate context, the UN and some countries with representa­tives in Nepal have come up with a joint statement on the TRC pro­cess. What is your take?

Our TRC is basically a home-grown process based on political consensus. It stands on the back of the Comprehensive Peace Agree­ment (CPA), the interim constitution and the new constitution. But yes, it is about time we completed the protracted peace process.

As a member of the Maoist move­ment and an active participant of the peace process, I am also concerned about the delay. But I wonder why the international community issued such a statement in haste. I think there was no need to get worried that way. We are on the right path.

There are voices that the TRC Act should be amended in line with the Supreme Court order.

We should be guided by the CPA and the new constitution. They are the main documents. Thus the TRC process should be completed within their framework. The role of the judiciary and other bodies is only to interpret these provisions. If there are loopholes, there is the parliament to plug them. There is no other way: you have to go by the constitution and the CPA. And this is the right path. Otherwise, there is a danger of the whole process falling apart, with serious consequences for the country.

As a former finance and prime minister, can you tell us why the national economy is in such a bad shape?

The government lacks clear think­ing. When I spoke in the parliament, I told them you should dare to dis­card the garb of communism. I still believe in Marx and many of his principles, especially his critique of capitalism. But he was critiquing a post-capitalist society. Nepal is in a pre-capitalist stage and transitioning into capitalism, and in this phase you have to promote private invest­ment, both internal and external, and industrialize rapidly. This is the root of the problem. Nepal’s com­munists have to recognize it.

 Do you think the Oli govern­ment’s foreign policy has been on the mark?

I think it has been quite imma­ture. Given our geopolitical reality and the fast-changing regional and international dynamics, we need a new foreign policy suited to the cur­rent context. That means a policy that takes into account the interests of India, China and the US. These three major forces have consider­able interests in Nepal and these interests are likely to clash in coming days. We should formulate our for­eign policy with this on mind.

Of course, we should have good relations with all three countries. We should follow a pacifist policy that promotes national, regional and world peace. Maybe we can even propose Nepal as a peace zone. Though this issue had been raised by King Birendra, there was no question of peace in an autocrat­ic system. Now, if we pursue this policy sincerely it is achievable. It will also be the best way to preserve our sovereignty and independence, and to embark on the path of peace and prosperity.