Submit your Article

We come into this world wailing, distressed. Our needs, which at that point are few and basic, must be met for us to be content and quiet. Unfortunately, for many, the sense of unfulfillment and anguish stays for a lifetime. It’s our nature to always want more, to compare ourselves, and find flaws in our otherwise pretty good, if not great, lives. We could have everything we ever wanted—good health, a stable job, et al, and still be unhappy.

Mental health issues aside, it’s often sheer unwillingness to value what we have that causes us so much pain. While cultivating a positive mindset could put an end to most of our worries and is thus really crucial, it’s easier said than done. It’s a skill that must be honed over time, say some really happy people I know. And being grateful, for things big and small, is a good place to start.

I have a friend who is the most charming and cheerful person I know. I can say without an iota of doubt that there isn’t anyone who has anything bad to say about her. I’ve never heard her utter an unkind word. For as long as I’ve known her, and it’s perhaps been over a decade, she’s been gracious, always willing to help others, and ready with a compliment or a word of encouragement when needed.

I’m not exaggerating when I say she radiates warmth and positivity. And she makes it all look so easy. But she recently confessed that it doesn’t come naturally to her. Her first thoughts, about people and situations, are vicious. It’s a conscious effort to look beyond what annoys her and dig out the good bits that she chooses to focus on. The result: She is much happier and isn’t bogged down by unnecessary, petty things.

Also read: Many ways we mourn

This mindset, she said, stems from the extreme gratitude she feels for all the good things that happen in her life. So many things could’ve gone wrong but they haven’t very often. And even when they sometimes have, as bad things invariably do, focusing on positive things has helped her overcome them without going into panic-mode. However, it’s natural for negative thoughts to creep in, making it difficult to be grateful. That is where a conscious effort to shift your focus comes handy.

Robert Emmons, world’s leading scientific expert on gratitude and author of the bestselling book ‘Thanks!: How Practicing Gratitude Can Make You Happier’, says “gratitude is an affirmation of goodness. We affirm that there are good things in the world, gifts and benefits we’ve received. We recognize that the sources of this goodness are outside of ourselves.” Gratitude isn’t about ignoring the hassles and problems in life. But a grateful outlook helps you take things as a whole, and no particular experience as an isolated one, designed to torment you. You are better able to identify the good things in your life, despite your circumstances.

Emmons, who has been studying the effects of gratitude on physical health, psychological well-being, and our relationships, says being grateful makes you more likely to take better care of yourself. A friend recently had some health issues. The doctor ran some tests and said her heart looked just fine. She says she saw her heart beat and felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude. Up until then she hadn’t paid much attention to her eating habits and didn’t exercise at all. She now goes on walks, cycles when she can, and tries to eat well. Thankful to what she considers her good luck, she’s determined to be healthier and happier.

Apparently, it helps if you write down things for which you are grateful. In a series of studies, Emmons and his colleagues have helped over a thousand people, from the ages eight to 80, cultivate gratitude by maintaining a gratitude journal. People who practice gratitude consistently were found to be forgiving, compassionate, and were less likely to feel lonely. They also had stronger immune systems, lower blood pressure, and slept well. On the psychological side, grateful people had higher levels of positive emotions and were optimistic and happy.

At a risk of embarrassing myself, I must confess that, for the longest time, I was the stubborn sort, grumpy unless things went exactly the way I wanted them to. My mother once jokingly said that I take after my father’s side of the family—a delight to be around only when everything is hunky-dory. But I believe that is true for most of us (though in my case the obstinate trait is largely genetic). Most of us aren’t able to handle criticism or that sometimes we could be wrong too. It’s difficult, impossible even, to own up to your mistakes, say sorry, and move on. We value ourselves and nurse our egos far too much to ever back down.

This ‘I-deserve-the-best’ mindset makes us defensive, easily hurt, and worse, wallow in self-pity. It took a couple of major health scares in my family, several years ago, for me to value life and the people in it, to come to the stark realization that perhaps many issues aren’t as important as we make them out to be. It was only then that I started being so much more grateful for all that I had and that has quite drastically upped the quality of my life.

I’m a lot less stressed and it’s easier for me to let go of things I can’t control than ever before. Being grateful—for those books I was able to buy, that delicious rice pudding my mother made, the time I was able to spend in the company of my loved ones, and being alive for another day—helps me deal with the inevitable hiccups with a ‘this-too-shall-pass’ approach. Life’s far from perfect but I’m the happiest I’ve ever been. 

After the Soviet withdrawal the Taliban held power over Afghanistan, and enforced strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law, until the 2001 US invasion. Their catchphrase during the Soviet intervention was a “war in the name of Islam”, demanding a reversal of all socialist policies including those that guaranteed women liberties through education and employment. After the Taliban came into power in 1996, they destroyed the Kabul Museum and smashed pre-Islamic statues to rubble, including the 1,500-year-old monuments of Bamiyan. The universities were closed, Kabul's ancient music ghetto Khabrat was silenced, musicians were beaten and imprisoned, and their musical instruments destroyed. Taliban banned all things which made life aesthetically beautiful and pleasing.

The Taliban's harsh treatment of women is condemned by the whole world. They believe in controlling women with coercive means. It is tragic to see the plight of Afghan women, who were more liberated, educated, and modern 50 years ago compared to the burqa-clad Afghan women of these days. Afghan rulers like Abdur Rahman Khan, King Habibula Khan, King Amanulla, and King Mohammad Zahir Shah contributed significantly to liberate Afghan women. Abdul Rahman Khan's wife was the first queen in Afghanistan to appear in public without veil, and his son Habibulla Khan viewed women as equal citizens and assets for future generations.

Likewise, Habibulla opened schools for girls in his reign, and women participated in the public sphere in western clothes and without veils. King Habibulla's successor King Amanulla Khan along with his wife advocated for women's rights and for universal education for both boys and girls. King Mohammad Zahir Shah's 40-year reign resulted in more rights for Afghan women both in law and practice. He viewed women working outside home as a part of development and modernization of Afghanistan. In the 1940s and 1950s the veil was made optional and women began attending universities and pursuing careers. Zahir Shah promulgated a new constitution in 1964 that assured women's suffrage. Empowerment of women continued under the Soviet-backed regime as well. It is tragic to see gender-based violence against Afghan women after all these years of struggle to empower them.

The Taliban are condemned internationally for the harsh enforcement of their interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, which has resulted in the brutal treatment of Afghan women. In Taliban-controlled areas, discrimination against women remains an official policy and encompasses nearly every aspect of women’s lives. Taliban rule in Afghanistan after Soviet withdrawal acted as a machinery in agonizing women, as they imposed burqa, a cloth covering women from head to toe, snatched their right to education and public offices, and didn’t allow women to walk in the streets without being accompanied by male family members. They removed women from the public sphere, halting their education and career development. Women who violated the gendered role were punished by public beating, stoning, rape, acid attack and even death.

The Soviet withdrawal, which eventually resulted in the Taliban's reign from 1996 to 2001, gave nothing but traumatizing experience to Afghan women.

After the US withdrawal, the Taliban has taken over the government, and the fate of the Afghan women again lies in the hands of the Taliban. Its representatives have stressed that they have changed from 1990's and they will allow girls to attend schools and women to work in public as long as they abide by Islamic laws. But it is hard to believe the Taliban will be so liberal towards women having witnessed their atrocities in the 1990s.

Women are doubly marginalized in Afghanistan, and the country is one of the most dangerous places for women to live. The Taliban's patriarchal ideology reduced women to mere domesticity of cooking, cleaning and childrearing. Its coercive control of women's freedom, rights, and sexuality is rooted in patriarchy too. As Bell Hook, a cultural critic and a radical black feminist, argues in her book “Feminism Is for Everybody”, "Patriarchal violence in home is based on the belief that it is acceptable for more powerful individual to control others through various forms of coercive force". Taliban have coercively controlled the freedom of education, movement and career for women. After the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the then first lady Laura Bush in an interview once said that "fight against terrorism in Afghanistan is also a fight for right and dignity of women.” She portrayed Afghan women as ones to be rescued from both an oppressive regime and the oppressive culture into which they were born.

Soviet and American interventionists both claimed one of their motives behind the intervention was to liberate women. Heather Barr in her article "The fragility of women's right in Afghanistan" writes of the reaction of Mahbouba Seraj, a longtime women’s rights activist in Afghanistan, when asked what message she wanted to give to the international community. Seraj says “I am going to say shame on you… I’m going to say to the whole world, shame on you”.

Her rage emanates from the fact that the new generation of the Afghan women are going to face the same fate their mothers faced 20 years back. She resents that the West all these years sold the image of blue-burqa clad Afghan women to justify their intervention in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, one cannot overlook the fact that Afghan women have become more vocal about their rights. It is heartwarming to see women demonstrating in the streets of Kabul asking the government to ensure their right to education, prospect of career development and protection against gender-based violence.

The author has an MPhil in English literature

We Nepalis have always dreamt of being ruled by visionary leaders assisted by disciplined and competent governance machinery. But what we got is the exact opposite. We have become a nation ruled by conflict mongering, criminal-minded and incompetent politicians who are assisted as enthusiastically in ruining the nation by the inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy. Political instability and an endless transition has made things worse.

To put things in perspective, let me begin with a comparison that came as a shocking eye-opener. Next to the small farmhouse that I am about to launch in my hometown, at a beautiful bhanjyang in the serene village named Chisapani in Waling Municipality, in Syangja district, a community school is being renovated. I spotted the contractor working on the project procuring the best quality tiles and granite slabs at the local hardware store, and some eager enquiries revealed shocking details.

The budget for the school’s toilet block is more than my total budget for the farmhouse. It is more surprising because the primary school has only 26 enrolled students. This seems an atrocious waste of scarce resources that could have been used on other important infrastructures like libraries and books. Such an absurd spending pattern has become a norm across the social sector and in government projects.

Much of this rampage of inflated expenditure in projects is caused by corrupt intent, and an ineffective monitoring and evaluation mechanism. But some sociological and political factors also need exploring while looking for deeper reasons. 

Let me share another example. I work in agriculture, and I am striving hard to initiate evidence-based and data-driven practices in small-scale farming. But at the local level, there are many government bodies one has to coordinate with to get benefits from different schemes targeted at farmers, or even simply to get some data about agriculture.

At the municipality level, the technical agriculture branches of the municipality work under the office of the Municipal Executive, which comprises elected and nominated local representatives. There is hardly any coordination between the district, province, federal and these municipal agencies.

Previously, the government had been providing agricultural extension services through various agriculture service centers and livestock service centers directly controlled by the ministry. But with the rolling out of federalism, the District Agriculture Offices have been closed. 

The government of Nepal had launched a plan to establish Community Agriculture Extension Service Centers (CAESC) under the  Agriculture Development Strategy, a 20-year strategic plan to guide the overall agricultural development of Nepal before the promulgation of the new constitution. It has now been redesigned to suit the federal structure. The Decentralized Science, Technology and Education Flagship program of ADS has a vision of establishment of CAESC in each VDC. But, in practice, things haven't shaped out as planned.

According to a study carried out by the Global Sustainable Research and Development Center, the CAESC’s established in Sindhuli and Rautahat districts have not been implemented effectively. The infrastructure is now used by rural municipality/municipality for their office purposes. As a result, we have dozens of government agencies in the district with no coordination with each other. When I strive to base our decisions on some reliable data about agricultural production, it seems like mission impossible.

Our politics, for the past three decades, has thrived on conflict mongering. As a result, our politicians have hardly any experience on governance. The result of the past four years, at different levels of our government, proves their ineptitude to prioritize correctly. While the federal government was incapacitated with the battle of egos of main leaders, the provincial and local governments have initiated some really laughable projects.

The country has a plethora of stupid projects as the mayors seem to be in a race to win the title of the stupidest politician. One municipality had cut down a healthy tree in a road-crossing to erect a concrete statue of a fruit, and many others have spent crores of rupees on view towers, concrete statues of animals, vegetables and even liquor bottles. One municipality recently spent more than Rs 2 million in building statues of cauliflowers and potatoes. That amount could have been utilized in establishing a research and advisory center to help farmers. 

Combined with this senseless anarchy led by our criminal-minded rulers, who are amply assisted by an inefficient governance structure, we as a society are also playing our part. Let's face it: unless we stop being tolerant of inefficient practices and unless we start ridiculing corruption in our family gossip, our children will face such endless injustice again and again.

It's high time we forced our government to spend the taxpayer money more efficiently.

Whichever way the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is finally settled in Nepal, whether Parliament ratifies, rejects, or amends it, the dust storm from its debate will take a long time to die down. 

The United States offered Nepal $500 million in grants for the construction of transmission lines and strategic roads through the MCC. It was meant to be a transformative deal: a grant large enough to unlock important development chokepoints in Nepal. Instead, the MCC agreement has been mired in a debilitating national debate, even forcing senior MCC officials to visit Nepal last week.

On September 8, a day before Fatema Z. Sumar, vice president at MCC, was due to arrive in Kathmandu for consultations on the agreement, Prime Minister Deuba told a meeting of his parliamentary party that there was “no need to politicize the matter.”

Just before Sumar left Kathmandu on September 12, she told the press that “MCC was being politicized,” and that “economic assistance should never be made a political weapon.”

The debate around the MCC is, no doubt, wrapped in politics. But if unpacked, that political debate offers important lessons that could help Nepal overcome its development challenges.

The forgotten project

The debate on MCC rapidly degenerated into a discussion of the terms of the agreement, and whether it represented a defence alliance or was part of the US’s Indo-Pacific Strategy. The merits and long-term impacts of the underlying project—cross border transmission lines with India—were ignored.

A precondition to the MCC grant was that Nepal sign an agreement with India for the Butwal-Gorakhpur cross-border transmission line. Last week, on September 10, Nepal Electricity Authority and Power Grid Corporation of India signed an agreement to jointly invest in the Indian side of the line (120 km of the 135 km line falls in India).

Cross border electricity trade cuts both ways. If Nepal can export electricity to India, then India could also export power to Nepal. In the long term, Nepal may be unable to compete in Indian power markets, thus shutting down the potential for large-scale hydropower development in Nepal and increasing Nepal’s dependence on Indian power imports.  

MCC has argued otherwise. In an editorial in Republica on Oct 3, 2019, the US ambassador to Nepal, Randy Berry, was unequivocal. “The MCC project,” he wrote, “focuses on constructing lines that will bring Nepal’s power to the consumers who will pay Nepal good money for it.  It is a simple fact of geography and economics that means India.”

In another 10 years, Ambassador Berry may not be here to see whether India has paid Nepal “good money” for its power. But Nepal’s intelligentsia will still be here. They may come to rue debating an agreement for a project whose impacts hadn’t been fully considered in the first place.

Political accountability

As painful and political as the debate may have been, the best thing MCC did was to require the agreement to be ratified by parliament. The question we should ask now is why other international grants and borrowing are not subject to the same oversight and approval from parliament.

Over the last five years, Nepal’s public debt has increased significantly, and is now projected to reach 47 percent by the end of the fiscal year. International borrowing accounts for a large share of that debt. Of course, Nepal needs to borrow for development and investment. It has space to borrow more.

But within this space for borrowing, many of Nepal’s donors are failing to consider whether their development grants or loans are in fact truly beneficial to Nepal. This is accelerating the government’s rush to borrow (or be gifted with a grant) and spend, without focusing adequately on prioritizing productive investments and quality implementation.

As Sumar said, “economic assistance should never be made a political weapon.” But the tragedy in Nepal is that easy availability of foreign financing is fuelling the government’s lethargy, patronage, corruption, and politicization of everything.

Fortunately, MCC requires the parliament’s intervention. Nepalis must trust their parliament to make the right decision, including on MCC and other development projects. After all, we elected them to make those decisions. But we must also urge Nepal’s donors to be attentive to the aspirations of Nepali citizens as we work to build our young democracy.

We cannot hold our politicians accountable, make our governments efficient and responsive if they are always flush with donor cash for projects that may not even be needed.    

[email protected]