Submit your Article

 The government attitude to one of the three pillars of the economy, the private sector, has been disappointing. There are efforts to limit the role of the private sector even though there is a need for effec­tive partnership between public and private sectors to achieve our larger economic goals. Even government estimates show that the private sector’s contribution is crucial to the timely achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Full liberalization of the econ­omy and enhancement of the capacity of the private sector have failed due to policy inconsisten­cies of the past three decades. The expectation that a stable gov­ernment would result in policy clarity and a consistent approach in dealing with the private sector has not been met. Riding on a capitalistic horse to reach the des­tination of ‘sound communism’ is questionable. The Nepal Commu­nist Party (NCP)-led government clearly doesn’t consider the pri­vate sector a formal partner for economic development.

A Swedish Finance Minister was once asked by Joseph E. Sti­glitz, a Nobel Prize winner econo­mist, why his country’s economy was doing so well. The answer: “Because we have high taxes.” What he meant, as Stiglitz inter­prets, is that Swedes know that in a prosperous country there is a high level of public expendi­ture on infrastructure, education, technology and social protection, and that the government needs revenues to sustainably finance these expenditures.

Many of these public expen­ditures complement private expenditures. Advances in gov­ernment-financed technology can help support private investment. Investors rely ever more on edu­cated labor force and good infra­structure. Central to rapid growth is an increase in knowledge, and the government has to support the underlying basic research. But no such effort is seen in Nepal although the tax rate here is much higher compared to other coun­tries in the region. A huge amount of revenue collected goes in recur­rent expenditure and there is a dearth of quality investment in education let alone in research and development.

I cite this example as it comes from an economist who recom­mends increasing the size of the public sector with higher taxes. But even such scholars agree on the basic premise that the mon­ey collected by the government should be spent to advance key aspects of the economy. Finance Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada, con­sidered a champion of the wel­fare economic model, issued a White Paper at the start of his tenure to show the pathetic state of the economy back then, and promised that he would attempt course-correction. Many trust­ed him, including this scribe. But two years down the line, the economy has not found its way and the private sector has lost its confidence.

Forty years ago, when China began its transition to a market economy, no one could have imagined that the impoverished county would have a GDP com­parable to that of the US in under half a century. The Communist Party of China (CPC) didn’t just sit by idly deregulating the market. It also devised well-crafted policies to incentivize the private sec­tor to grow and compete against their counterparts from other developed countries.

In the context of Nepal, the NCP government should be mindful that the referees them­selves do not end up playing the economic game. Nor should the game’s rule surprise the players. A formal private sector always looks for policy reforms to gen­erate growth and job opportu­nities. It is the government’s job to facilitate a public-private dia­logue and draft policies to boost private sector enthusiasm in nation-building

Holeri of Rolpa, the place of genesis of the Maoist ‘people’s war’, wore a deserted look on February 13, the 25th anniversary of the start of the decade-long war that ended in 2006. Follow­ing the merger of the warring mother Maoist party with the erstwhile CPN-UML to form the Nepal Communist Party, the country’s current ruling party, the celebrations this year were rather muted. On 13 February 1996, the Maoist party had started its insurgency by attacking a police post at Holeri. To mark the occasion, Energy Minis­ter Barshaman Pun, who had led the attack, was in Rolpa to address a media conference on the war anniversary.

“With the end of the people’s war, the country has ventured forth on the path of economic prosperity,” he claimed. “The war that started under my com­mand at Holeri has brought about drastic changes in the country.” Pun expressed his satisfaction that the Maoist hotbed of Rolpa is now bet­ter known as a place of peace and prosperity.

The Nepal Communist Party had decided to celebrate ‘peo­ple’s war day’ by organizing dif­ferent events in all districts of Province 5. But these functions turned out to be small indoor affairs resembling government meetings. The former Maoist warriors and family members of the martyrs did not even know of these meetings.

Biplob faction carries the torch

In comparison, the banned communist party under Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplob’, a break­away Maoist outfit, celebrated the day with much fanfare in Thawang, Rolpa. They started the celebration of the 25th anniversary of ‘people’s war’ on the open ground at Thulo Gaun. Posters with the red sick­le-and-hammer flags were seen plastered all around the town. The party says it is trying to keep the spirit of the ‘people’s war’ alive. The party organized weeklong sports and cultural events, according to a district leader. “We hoisted party flags on almost all of the 400 houses of Thawang,” he told APEX over the phone. “Residents of this place made huge contribu­tions to the war. Many became martyrs. We are celebrating the day to respect their sacrifice.” Altogether 23 residents of Tha­wang had died in the decade-long war.

“We continue to celebrate the people’s war day,” the leader said. Celebrations included men’s and women’s volleyball tournament, kabaddi, badmin­ton, dohori song competition, among others. The winning teams of volleyball under both men’s and women’s categories were given cash prizes of Rs 50,000, Rs 30,000, and Rs 20,000 for the first, second and third place finishers. The party said local patrons and well-wishers had generously donated the prize money.

Security agencies that had stopped the party from dis­playing flags and banners in the past had now relaxed the restriction, the leader said.

Meanwhile, jailed lead­ers of the Biplav faction also celebrated the war anniver­sary in Rolpa District Jail by smearing vermillion powder on each other and exchang­ing greetings. Twelve members of the party including Rapti bureau in-charge Kesh Baha­dur Bantha Magar ‘Subhas’, Santosh Subedi ‘Prayas’, and Pusta Man Gharti are serving prison terms there

China’s centrality in Nepali foreign policy is hard to deny. As Nepal’s one of only two humongous immediate neighbors, China is that vital counterbalance to an often overbearing India. Beyond that, the second largest economy in the world is a potentially boundless export market for our products. The landlocked country also has a lot to learn from China in terms of (timely) infrastructure-development. Many think Nepal should be wary of China as it is an authoritarian country. But I have always held that in foreign policy conduct, democratic and non-democratic countries often act alike, as both follow narrow-minded national interests. Therefore, the ultimate objectives of the policies pursued by the likes of India and the US in Nepal are no dif­ferent to those pursued by China. But, then, can Nepal afford to increase its dependence on China indefinitely?

As political scientist Krishna Khanal warns in this week’s APEX interview, “With China, we made a leap forward. But do we have the capacity and preparations to sustain this new level of engagement? If we do not, it could be counter­productive.” The fear is that as the communist government increases Nepal’s dependence on China, the Chinese may want greater assurance for the safety of their investments of all kinds. And what better way to do so than by harmonizing Nepal’s governance with China’s? The Chinese have thus been more and more vocal about the developments in Nepal that even remotely threaten their interests.

The latest example of this is the statement by the Chinese Embassy condemning an article on coronavirus and an accompanying photograph published by The Kathmandu Post. The statement did not stop at that. It also issued a veiled threat to its editor-in-chief Anup Kaphle (who, incidentally, was to leave The Post a day after the article’s publication). Without the statement from the Chinese Embassy, few in Nepal would have read the article that was originally pub­lished in an international outlet. By publicly condemning the article and the editor, the Chinese Embassy ensured that both would get an inordinate amount of attention.

We can understand that coronavirus is a sensitive topic in China, as it struggles to contain the contagion. The language of the article is also rather harsh (by Chinese standards), as is the depiction of the Great Helmsman in a facemask. But so what? Nepal is a sovereign, democratic country with a vibrant press. It’s hard for our own government, even one with a two-thirds majority, to tame the raucous Nepali press. An outside power like China has no chance. It is not new for employees of embassies, ambassadors included, to call up editors and publishers to register their complaints. Yet for a country to issue a public statement against an opinion-piece is a blatant breach of diplomatic norms and a shocking show of lack of knowledge of Nepali society.

The Nepali media have traditionally been appreciative of China’s role in Nepal, especially after the Indian blockade. It would be dangerous for China to see this as a blind support for it. A word of advice in the end: Why doesn’t the Chinese Embassy employee Nepali political and press advisors, as do the missions of other big countries in Kathmandu? Perhaps they could offer some timely advice that would forestall a repeat of such hara-kiri acts.

Before elections, Ramraja Prasad Singh, Shankar Ghimire, and Nirmal Lama were already a nuisance for the Panchayat regime. Rishikesh Shah became the new troublemaker post-elections. In the Rastriya Panchayat, he started talking about rule of law. He demanded that the government be accountable to the people through the legislative, not to the king. His demand for an ‘opposition bench’ in the parliament rang alarm bells in the palace. For even the thought of opposition was inconsistent with the Panchayat ideal. Shah even gave a memo to King Mahendra demanding direct public elections to the Rastriya Panchayat.
Evidently, King Mahendra didn’t like that. He had appointed Shah to the posts of permanent representative to the United Nations, foreign minister, and finance minister. The king had even made him a member of the Royal Privy Council, which was more powerful than the Rastriya Panchayat. So it was natural for the king to be unhappy with Shah. He was sent to prison for criminal offence on 10 July 1969. The court released him
a year later.
The election of graduates gave a clear message: “Educated and intellectual people are against Panchayat.” The four members elected under this provision became more influential than the 121 Panchayat supporters in the house. The palace and the Panchayat regime could not restrain them. It boosted the morale of the liberals and discouraged the conservatives. The third elections of graduates was scheduled for 8 June 1971 where more of the radical youths had filed candidacy. Ramraja Prasad Singh was one of them. Twenty-two candidates including Rishikesh Shah, Ramhari Joshi, Krishna Prasad Bhandari, Shankar Ghimire, Rupchandra Bista, Prakash Chandra Lohani, Prayagraj Singh Suwal, Birendra Keshari Pokharel were running for the four seats.
Many of the candidates had links with Nepali Congress. Most of them were fighting against the state control of fundamental rights, and pushing for direct elections to the parliament. Singh had already left a mark in the previous elections. He had also pleaded before the court in favor of arrested student leaders of Nepali Congress, which brought him closer to the party’s youth wing.
For his second campaign, Singh had drafted an even fiercer electoral manifesto. Calling King Mahendra’s move of 15 December 1960 undemocratic and unconstitutional, he said the year before that under Nepali Congress was a ‘golden age’ for the country. Naturally, Congress got interested in him. His manifesto was termed revolutionary. Rajendra Kharel, Haribol Bhattarai, Anar Singh Karki, and other Congress leaders openly supported him.
The candidacy of Krishna Prasad Bhandari was also not to the liking of the Panchayat regime. The Panchayat wanted to ensure, by all means, that dissenters got defeated. According to the erstwhile secretary of Election Commission Laxman Rimal, civil servants were given written orders: “Don’t cast your votes to the dissenters, you can vote for anyone else.” Rimal, however, says he didn’t himself see these notes (Biteka Ti Dinharu, 2012).
From Congress, socialist leader Ramhari Joshi was a candidate, and his manifesto also opposed the Panchayat regime. “The king should not rule directly. For, if there is any mistake in governance, the blame goes to the king. To save the king from such blame, the country should be run by a government elected through adult franchise. In that case, the government would be blamed for everything that goes wrong, not the king,” he wrote in his manifesto. (Atmakatha tatha Nepali Congress sanga Gasiyeka Samjhanaharu, Ramhari Joshi, 2010)
Rupchandra Bista, the famous non-conventional leader of the Panchayat era, was also a candidate for the graduate elections. “This election for graduates is a small hole in the big wall that goes by the name of Panchayat. I am here to scream out from that small hole,” he had said. (Himal Khabarpatrika, July 1999)
Ghimire, Joshi, and Bista were arrested shortly after the elections. Ramraja Prasad Singh went
underground O
Next week’s Vault of History will discuss the disturbances created during vote-counting following the third graduate elections