Submit your Article

As the federal government mulls yet another nationwide lockdown, let us take a moment to reflect on those who have suffered the most from the previous complete or partial lockdowns: not the big business owners, not their employees, or most people who enjoyed their chats and walk during the lockdown.

Those most affected are citizens who were suffering from the vicious consequences of pervasive and structural inequalities even before the lockdown: daily wagers who are the backbone of the national economy, even if their contributions are not officially counted.

Amid repetitive warnings from the World Health Organizations that the fight against this virus is far from over, including strong admonitions that a second waves of infections are probably just few months away, it is worth noting that Nepal has not even reached the peak of the outbreak. The worst is yet to come.

In this increasingly complex scenario, the decision makers have a tough choice: should they keep the economy open, give more respite to ailing workers and enterprises or should they considering enforcing a strict lockdown again? The stakes could not be higher: either let people risk their lives with a disease that is hard to tackle or allow many others to suffer from the lockdown’s economic impact. Perhaps it could be helpful to reformulate this dilemma from a vulnerability perspective.

Should policymakers allow the most vulnerable segments of the population to die from the pandemic? Or should their lives be jeopardized by getting them back to work in order to revive the beleaguered economy?

The way we answer these two questions is important. How many people working in the formal economy will literally lose their jobs if the work and movement restrictions are re-imposed? How many businesses could sacrifice some of their income and yet survive with a different business model that leverages on line, smart work? What can the State do to soften the hard impact on these corporations? How much fiscal space is there for the government in this emergency? Can resources otherwise allocated be diverted to corona-control? What can big donors do in such a situation?

A country like Sweden that took a very liberal approach to the lockdown paid a high price. Singapore, after enforcing a so called “circuit breaker” lockdown, a necessity after haphazardly easing up restrictions, is now back on business despite suffering a high daily per capita infections. The secret to this approach is to impose very strong regulations, expecting the citizens to strictly follow them out of a sense of civic responsibility.

Qatar, quite impacted in terms of number of persons infected in relation to its overall population, imposed draconian rules.

In addition all these countries have the resources and the knowhow of an efficient health system that is capable of dealing with severe outbreaks. Yet the leaders there are aware that even their best hospitals may not cope well in case of severe community outbreaks.  

Can Nepal follow suit and enforce a strong compliance system? Can the government mobilize private hospitals in case infections rise further? Are the private hospitals ready for that?

Many are going to lose something or the other in these circumstances. A progressive and far-sighted government should decide who is going to lose the most: those who are vulnerable and marginalized or the better off, including the roaring middle class?

While the latter deserve special consideration in terms of economic relief in the form of stimulus packages, the former are those at most risk no matter what the government decides.

Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths to promote social inclusion in Nepal. He can be reached at [email protected]

One of the many unintended consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic is the rekindling of people’s faith in religion. It is no surprise though, as we have witnessed resurgence of religions during times of uncertainty throughout history. Moreover, modernity has not lessened the salience of religion. In fact, it has heightened it. Around the world, more and more people are leaving their ancestral lands and heading to cities in search of better opportunities. In doing so, they leave behind their joint families and strong social ties. Even as they are bereft of their social support, the consumerist and individualistic urban lifestyles heighten their sense of alienation. In these hard times, they can find great solace in invoking god. Yet, the inexorable march of urbanization does not stop. 

Officially, as of 2018, around 80 percent of Nepal’s population was rural, down from nearly 97 percent in 1960. The actual percentage of urban population in Nepal could be even higher when considering the effects of seasonal migration. In India, over 30 percent of its citizens now live in cities. In China, around 60 percent do. This has not been missed by politicians, who would like to cash in on this often alienating experience of modernization and urbanization. 

The BJP in India (80 percent Hindu) has openly and successfully pandered to its fast-urbanizing Hindu population. Political parties in Nepal (over 80 percent Hindu) also can’t ignore their Hindu vote bank. The pro-Hindu RPP Nepal emerged as the fourth biggest party from the second Constituent Assembly elections in 2013, with its greatest support reported in the Kathmandu Valley. Had Kamal Thapa not so badly compromised on his Hindu agenda when in power, a big section of the population could still be backing him. Top leaders of the NCP and the NC know this. 

Donald Trump, a serial philanderer and liar, was elected and sworn in by the Bible in 2016. He understands the continued importance of being pictured as a pious Christian once a while. From India to Indonesia, Brazil to Burma, religious politics are making a comeback. Nepal is now a constitutionally ‘secular’ state. But as the country was declared secular almost overnight, with little debate about what it entailed, most Nepalis still don’t know what to make of it. They also see how the ‘irreligious’ communist government, the strongest democratic government Nepal has ever had, is failing the country. 

Because of this, it may also be the perfect time for the revival of religious politics. For whenever there is a big natural disaster, the number of faithful increases. Apparently, most of the devout, whatever their religion, believe these natural phenomena are the result of people abandoning their faith—and not of god abandoning them. There have been countless tales of how people’s loss of fear in gods had contributed to the 2015 Nepal earthquakes. Now, many well-educated Nepalis are visiting temples to ward off Covid-19. 

These are the same folks who never tire of saying that if there is a referendum on religion, Nepal would be declared a Hindu state by a landslide. Even Karl Marx (‘Religion is the opium of the masses’) acknowledged how religion provided succor to those going through hard times. 

People want to belong and for their lives to be meaningful. But urbanization and modernization are pushing them into a seemingly soulless, anonymous existence. The Covid-19 crisis is exacerbating this trend. Expect religious politics to make a roaring comeback in its aftermath. 

Those invested in the political system in Nepal are either living in a state of denial or day-dreaming, and that includes the pro-democracy intelligentsia. It should not take much deliberation to conclude that Nepal is a failed state, infected with political decadence beyond correction, characterized by kleptocracy and mafia-rule.

What is on display in Nepal today, in front of one of the youngest populations in the world, is not just befuddling stupidity. It’s a relentless interplay of criminal intents among the political forces. Polity has lost its ground of ideals and discarded all pretense of justice. It’s rather entangled in a naked power-play.

This era of technological shift has unforgivingly un-flattened the world in favor of the nations ruled by adept and collaborative leaders. It has rewarded societies led with well thought out strategy. And leaders with hardcore dedication to commit to the ideals, in the midst of a global crisis that has shattered power structures, have emerged as heroes.

Unfortunately, none of this is true in Nepal. What is worse, we have a concoction of criminal intent and a feudal hunger for power in most of the leaders at the helm.

We have wasted 30 years of democracy driven by the political parties that came as a replacement of the Panchayati democracy. With the king ousted, there is no one to be blamed. Therefore, the slow disappearance of hope is not just disheartening, it’s utterly confusing for the youth and has become a serious threat for democracy itself.

Is there hope for change? Is there a way out of this crisis? What will lead us out—a change to Presidential system, a new political party emerging as an alternative, or the present parties correcting themselves to be better version of themselves?

There is no indicator of any of these happening soon.

As the ruling party, led by KP Sharma Oli, and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, is in the middle of a fierce power struggle, the whole country is forced to watch in angst. The power of a near two-thirds majority is almost wasted. What could have been an opportunity to fortify growth through policy reforms and game changing infrastructure development, has been turned into an era of senseless stalemate. Half the government’s term has passed, and we are not even sure the parliament will complete its tenure.

Self-survival has become the only issue that the government is worried about. And the challengers are from the ruling party itself.

But how about the alternatives? The picture is gloomy everywhere.

The Nepali Congress, in the role of opposition, has utterly failed. And now, it also seems to be engulfed in a power struggle of its own, with the party convention planned at the end of this year. Recently, an ex-Mahamantri was expelled from the party for five years. Sher Bahadur Deuba, the current party president, has taken initiatives to fortify his hold over the party.

The Koiralas, who have been in charge of the party for 49 years since BP Koirala founded it 79 years ago, are trying to get the hold back. Shashank Koirala (BP’s youngest son) will probably claim the leadership.

More than half of Nepal’s population is under 25, and in the next election in less than three years more than 20 percent of voters will be new. That is a huge chunk of the electorate, and because they will all be young they will look for fresh, youthful leaders. This is where the NC disappoints as an alternative. Gagan Thapa, the charismatic leader of a new generation, hasn't shown a clear indication of staking leadership.

This is the gloomy state of affairs. And there seems to be no plausible best-case scenario out if this muddle. And there appears no end to the instability; in last 70 years, we have seen a change of government 42 times.

Will there be a rise of an alternative political force that can downsize the present political parties? Will we have a real stability anytime soon? The answer seems to be a ‘No’ on both counts. At least not without a revolution.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. When the polity indulges in dark self-serving pursuits, and the people have lost all hope from the system, political revolutions are the only option left. Will Nepali youth rise to the challenge that time has imposed on them?

“Only the fear or hatred of an external enemy—and, thus, the continuance or fabrication of inter-state anarchy—could give a government adequate authority in the eyes of the requisite individuals to induce them to willingly submit to its power,” writes Michael C. Evans. The professor of political science at Georgia State University is summing up a central tenet in the political philosophy of James Madison, the fourth American president and the ‘father’ of its constitution. A hardcore republican like Madison who played a vital role in the ouster of the British occupying forces from the US was also among the first political theorists on democratic nation-states. 

The democratic actors of republican Nepal can no more ascribe every evil in the country to autocratic monarchs. When their failure as responsible democratic actors becomes impossible to hide, they thus like to invoke the evil designs of foreign forces—or a foreign force, namely India—to cover up their mistake. As Madison argued, summoning an external enemy may be necessary for all governments to get people to ‘willingly submit to their power’. It is indispensable if such a power is being blatantly abused and public criticism against the government is growing.  

Nepali communists have been experts at raising the specter of external enemies, mostly to cut their opponents down to size. In the middle of the Maoist insurgency in 2003, party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ urged his rank and file to dig up trenches to prepare for a war against “an expansionist India and an imperialist US”. What Dahal wanted to achieve through this bizarre campaign was to silence Baburam Bhattarai, his most vocal ‘pro-India’ critic in the party. In 2009, Dahal, following his forced resignation over the botched sacking of army chief, again tried to play up his nationalist credentials by demonizing India and its henchmen in Nepal.  

Much before that, in 1998, Bamdev Gautam divided the CPN-UML against the party’s decision to endorse the ‘anti-national’ Mahakali treaty with India. Again, Gautam, never a patient man, was itching to take over UML leadership, and saw the aftermath of the Mahakali treaty as the perfect time to bring dislodge general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. 

Now, the ruling Nepal Communist Party is again on the verge of a breakdown. Prime Minister KP Oli, having failed to govern and feeling besieged in his own party, has been going at India hammer and tongs. He has accused other senior NCP leaders of plotting with India to bring down his government. Without a shred of historical or even anecdotal evidence, he claims Lord Ram was born in Nepal and not India. His opponents in the party are in a spot of bother. If they punish Oli for his incompetence, they will forever have to live with the taint of capitulating before India, a capital offense in Nepali communist movement. 

But for the first time in the democratic history of Nepal, a ruling party is being chastised, not for cozying up to the traditional bully in India but to the increasingly meddlesome Chinese. As China’s engagement with Nepal rises, there is a possibility of creation of a powerful and vocal anti-China camp. Yet as of now, Oli can live with it. In Madison’s formulation, “only the fear or hatred of an external enemy”, real or fabricated, will rally people behind it. Perhaps no other head of government in Nepal has perfected this difficult art of using an external actor to his advantage more than KP Sharma Oli. His communist comrades can only quietly marvel.