Submit your Article

Within a week of PM KP Oli’s parliament dissolution, Nepali Congress began organizing mass protests in all districts. Leaders forcefully criticized Oli for “assaulting democracy and the constitution” and made critical appraisals of the Nepali Communist Party’s tenure in government. The case against the dissolution then moved to the Supreme Court, whereupon a divide grew inside Congress. Unsurprisingly, it appeared along the same fault-lines Congress is known for. Instead of uniting as the opposition, Congress leaders predictably jumped at the chance to revive intra-party rivalries.

In this episode, the dividing issue has been Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba’s declaration that Congress will not put pressure on the court and will accept the court verdict unconditionally, even if it leads to the mid-term elections Oli has announced. On the other side of the dividing line, Dr. Shekhar Koirala, Shashank Koirala, Prakash Man Singh, Gagan Thapa and others, in one way or another, have demanded House reinstatement and suggested Congress not go to elections. While they urge the Supreme Court to decide the case a particular way and protest against election, they allege cadres are “confused due to mixed signaling” from top leadership.” Deuba, however, while backing the protests, was also among the first to criticize the dissolution as unconstitutional and undemocratic.

While Deuba maintains that political pressure should never be used to undercut judiciary’s independence, others lament his reluctance. Do Congress leaders have varying levels of respect for separation of powers and judicial independence, or is it just another game of political football inside the party?

A few things are certain: the Supreme Court currently has the dissolution case as sub judice, which is defined as: “under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.” It is also a fact that the court is an independent government body, and suspicion of influence from outside weakens the full force of the verdict, whatever it may be. For example, if all parties demand the reinstatement of the House and the House is reinstated, it opens the door for Oli allege the SC of bowing down to pressure. This is an outcome no one wants.

Therefore, not wishing to discuss a case that is sub judice and not to profess your preferred outcome seems prudent, whichever outcome you desire. Yet, senior leaders such as Ram Chandra Paudel have not stopped discussing it publicly. He has, incredibly, professed the SC should be “directly told to reinstate the House.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Shekhar Koirala has said the election Oli declared is “not possible,” adding, “Deuba’s not asking for House reinstatement while calling its dissolution unconstitutional is meaningless.” But as a prominent political figure it is impossible not to put pressure on the court when declaring preferred outcomes. Therefore, it is not “meaningless” to abstain from pressuring the Supreme Court; in a democracy, it is paramount.

Dr. Minendra Rijal took another stupefying line of attack when he said, “Party President Deuba overstepped his bounds by saying Congress will accept election if that is the court verdict.” Here we see an MP actually saying it is wrong of his party president to show readiness to accept the Supreme Court verdict.

Gagan Thapa says holding protests against the dissolution of the House is essentially the same as demanding reinstatement from the SC. But the protests not only revolve around dissolution but on the Oli government’s record as a whole. Labeling the dissolution unconstitutional and organizing protests moreover were immediate reactions to Oli’s actions, which the party surely must have done as the main opposition. But it is wrong of leaders to then use this protest platform to demand the House’s reinstatement, because that is something we leave to the Supreme Court. Protesting against PM Oli’s actions, in contrast, is a citizen right and not something we leave to the judiciary.

Moreover, Deuba maintains silence on reinstatement at a cost. It certainly does not cost him anything to come out in favor of it; to the contrary, political currents favor him, as both NCP factions have reportedly offered him Prime Minister’s chair, conditional on reinstatement. Deuba seems to value judicial independence over political expediency. This is especially important as other Congress leaders are undermining the judicial process while ironically claiming to be bastions of democratic sanctity.

Therefore, while some act like they are in a functioning democracy, others weaponize the issue for intra-party politics. Recently, the NC issued a press statement to clarify that its central committee meeting had agreed to let NC’s respective province parliamentary members assess which NCP faction is better suited to Congress. Yet, ‘anonymous’ Congress leaders came out of the same meeting to brief the press that “Deuba was inclined to side with Oli.”

Now is great time to unite against the failings of current government but it is obvious where priorities of some in the party lie. They repeatedly choose to undercut their own leadership, undermine judicial independence and the force of its verdict, and even party unity. Either they are unaware of this or pretend to be so. It is hard to say which is worse.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi dreads open confrontation with China. Most recently, his government has been playing down the building of a ‘village’ by Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh. Unlike Pakistan, a far weaker military adversary that India can control to an extent, China is right now an invincible rival. The Hindu-nationalist prime minister is aware that active confrontation with China and reverses for India will make him lose face. Yet the Indian army is already preparing for the inevitable as it re-orients its forces towards China, and away from Pakistan. Whether or not Modi wants it, India and China are headed for more confrontation—and he will somehow have to deal with it. 

The Americans meanwhile want ever-closer strategic ties with India to check China’s growing influence across Asia. India at this point has no option but to accept American help as China gets more aggressive on its border. But it will be a tricky balance. There is still great reluctance in India’s strategic community about allowing America into South Asia under the Indo-Pacific framework: Why should India give the US greater leverage in its traditional backyard? 

Back here in Nepal, US Ambassador Randy Berry has been making the rounds of the houses of top Nepali political leaders, hot on the heels of a similar, much criticized house-hopping activism of the Chinese envoy, Hou Yanqi. Surely, in diplomacy, what is wrong for the Chinese is also wrong for the Americans. The US envoy is not meeting Nepali heads of state and government; he is rather currying favors from individual political leaders. This is perhaps the clearest sign that the Americans are determined to get Nepal to endorse of the MCC compact—which is quickly emerging as an indispensable part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy—at the earliest. (His Excellency knows that cannot happen without a functioning House.)

The IPS vows to come to India’s rescue in the event of a border war with China. Following the publication of the Indo-Pacific Framework, and its clear emphasis on enabling India to balance China, the Chinese too have increased their lobbying in Kathmandu against the MCC compact. How can the government of Nepal, they are asking our officials, help Americans encircle China? Earlier, the Chinese used to laugh off Indian activism in Nepal, which they saw as rather amateurish. No more. The Chinese are now determined to thwart both Indians and Americans. This Chinese need to undermine US-India co-operation at all costs; the American wish to pursue their regional interests with Indian help; and the Indian strategy of using American help while retaining its primacy—it is an impossible combination of goals. 

In this vastly changed geopolitical reality, Nepal will also have to prepare for some nightmares: more foreign funding to destabilize it; the prospect of Nepalis dying on the Indo-China front; growing Indian claims over disputed territories; another border blockade; who knows what! At the rate India-China relations are deteriorating, time may also not be far when Nepal has to choose between competing Indian and Chinese goods, everything from telecom equipment, railway gauge, vaccines, to military hardware. 

Nepal needs to be prepared for the worst. But it is far from it. During such heightened uncertainty in the region, the country does not even have a permanent government. The ruling party is split (or not), and elections seem far-far away. No wonder competing international powers are trying to build their constituencies by bulldozing diplomatic niceties. 

History was made by a group of young Nepali men away from home last week, while less than a dozen political heads have kept us locked in a state of senseless and toxic amusement here. A surreal video of 10 Nepali men singing national anthem atop the second highest mountain in the world, K2 in Pakistan, went viral on social media. This justifiably made millions of Nepalis swell with pride and bow in respect for their audacity, grit and wisdom.

Their exact stories of hard work, dedication, sacrifice and team spirit are yet to emerge in detail but by all accounts, it’s a great feat. K2, the “Savage Mountain,” hadn't been conquered in winter, till now. And a team of Nepali climbers permanently intervening to write a climbing history of this scale is a revenge on history.

Freddie Wilkinson, a writer and climbing guide, wrote in The New York Times: “Last month two expeditions of Nepali climbers converged on the Godwin Austen Glacier in a remote corner of Pakistan to attempt the feat. Neither of the groups was there to guide wealthy Western clients to the top and then take back seats to their accomplishments, as Nepalis in general and ethnic Sherpa in particular often do as the hired help. They were climbing for themselves.”

The leaders of the two Nepali teams that came together to achieve a winter ascent of the K2, Nirmal Purja and Mingma Sherpa, are two such champions.

Purja had joined the British Army at 18, and served in the special forces. Mingma G Sherpa comes from a family of climbing guides. His father had lost fingers to frostbite after tying the laces of his client’s boots on Everest. Purja made a record climbing all 8,000-plus peaks in six months and six days, while Sherpa has stood on top of Everest five times and K2 twice.

From 1950 to 1964, all 14 of the world’s mountains above 8,000 meters (26,247 feet) were climbed for the first time, and local guides, working for paltry sums, were used in a thankless manner. What began as a competing ground in the high Himalayas for countries during the Cold War, has evolved as a pursuit of vanity for the super-rich. This has taken the form of exploitation in what has often been called 'High Altitude Colonialism'.

It's a great irony that 'climbing for ourselves' is still a privilege for Nepali climbers. Nepalis with immense potential have been betrayed by the political instability within, and the external factors also haven't been supportive.  Globalization, and the accompanying technological revolutions, were expected to flatten the world, but we see a continuation of the unjustified privileges of the previous era.

Every nation that's left out has its own tragic story. Nepal at the moment has almost 95 percent of its population under 65 years of age. Almost 65 is in the working age group, ie 15 to 65. Despite these promising statistics, our GDP per capita remains just over a thousand dollars.

Our economy shadows our politics. Volatile, unpredictable and mostly unreliable (experts say the official statistics don't represent the actual scale) our economy hasn't been able to build a supportive base for any kind of sports or other creative endeavors. As a society we haven't worked on providing institutionalized support to the efforts of committed individuals like these 10 climbers who made us proud. The achievements that Nepal has made in different fields have been made by individual champions or teams lead by outstanding leaders who fought the odds at every step.

In 2012, Sano Babu Sunuwar, a paraglider who had started his journey as a river guide in Pokhara, attempted what would be considered an audacious endeavor by all standards. He got hold of a Sherpa friend of his, and together they climbed Everest, and jumped from there and kayaked through the gorges to the rivers down below to the Bay of Bengal. From the top of the highest peak in the world to the sea level, this amazing journey got the duo the Nat Geo Adventurer of the Year 2012 award.

But in 2018 when Sunuwar wanted to hold the world championship of paragliding in Nepal, government bodies did everything possible to make things difficult for the team. Finally, a small amount was passed for the event by the ministry of tourism, which, the organizers told me, was mostly spent on ministry officials themselves. Sunuwar runs his own paragliding school and has been working hard to pay the dues of the event till date.

When great champions make us proud and give us those rare chest-thumping moments as Nepali citizens, we must remember the apathy these endeavors face from the society, government and the corporate world in general. If we do not work to set up institutions to support these champions, these moments will be rarer still.

The Supreme Court has issued a stay order on the government decision to allow foreign investment in agriculture. This comes as no surprise as the entire business community is against it. What is surprising is that there is no voice of protest from farmers let alone researchers, practitioners, academicians and think-tanks. The only argument that the business community and different professional groups give is that there should be a comprehensive study before jumping into conclusions. Ironically, industrialists and business community have no interest in supporting studies that feed into policy decisions. Such a culture is non-existent in the country.

All the umbrella organizations of private sector protested. The Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FNCCI), the Nepal Chamber of Commerce (NCC) and the Confederation of Nepalese Industries (CNI), they all said the decision to allow foreign investment should be taken after the private sector commissions a study and discusses its pros and cons. Similarly, the Dairy Industries Association Nepal (DIAN), the Nepal Dairy Association (NDA), the Central Dairy Cooperative Association (CDCA) and the Federation of Central Livestock Cooperative (FCLC) are also against the decision. They claim their investment worth around $850 million will be at risk if this decision is implemented.

The government decision could also be interpreted as going against the Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer Act (FITTA), 2019. But it is not against the act’s spirit. The decision is to allow foreign investment in sub-sectors such as fishery, beekeeping, dairy, livestock, fruits and vegetables and other primary areas. Foreign investment can bring new opportunities to farmers and allow them to get better prices for their products, both in short and long run.

Against this backdrop, we must consider issues related to seeds and ecology while allowing foreign investment in primary areas of agriculture. One major concern should be ensuring diversity and maintaining continuity of traditional seeds while the market could be flooded with patented seeds. Another aspect that we must pay attention to is ecological balance. But both issues remain in the backseat in an economy where a large number of people struggle for basic means of livelihood. Nepal’s per capita income of $1,074 matches those of the poorest countries in the world, and many Nepalis have to live in fear of food insecurity round the year.

An archaic dilemma arises: should we let people suffer from hunger and malnutrition to protect ecology and environment? Global experience shows us that once a certain income threshold is crossed, people start caring about the ecology they are part of and the climate they live in. But some countries prefer to remain perpetually poor in the name of protecting their domestic actors. India is an example of such willful poverty, as it hurts its farmers by embracing protectionism.

Opening foreign investment poses challenges no doubt. But the country can craft policies that ensure that the money coming in is going to right areas at right times. Static policy regimes do not work because there must be cost-benefit analysis of any policy that involves primary areas of agriculture. That is exactly where Nepal falls behind. Nepal’s policy-making is not dynamic enough to accommodate new challenges and opportunities. The private sector, which is supposed to make the market more competitive, is instead lobbying to maintain the status quo.

Industrialists and businesses could help domestic think tanks conduct studies and come up with policy recommendations. But they are spending their resources on lobbying and litigating against the decision, without any proof that such actions is in the country’s broader interest. This is largely because of their lack of interest in promoting the sector. It may not be right to question their intent. But it is for everyone to see that they have been clear beneficiaries of the status quo in agriculture. This must change and the only way to change it is to disrupt the system. Foreign investment in agriculture will bring about that disruption.