Submit your Article

 We are delighted to bring to you the 100th issue of The Annapurna Express. In the past two years, we have always tried to adapt our content and design based on your feedback. Our goal remains the same: to publish a comprehensive weekly newspaper that is both informative and fun to read. Rather than follow the crowd, APEX has been able to craft a unique niche for itself even in Nepal’s crowded newspaper scene. Our experimentation continues, as we look to add more value to our readers.

Yet the state of the country worries us. According to government figures, the economy continues to grow at over 6 percent, a middling rate for a country in Nepal’s state of development. But what is holding us back? Why are most sectors of our economy stagnating? There is scope for improvement everywhere: BFIs, construction, advertising, media, vehicles, services, you name it.

This should be the most important national issue right now. If our industries and businesses cannot thrive, it is hard to see the government realize its vision of ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali.’ To mark our 100th issue and second anniversary, APEX thus sought the advice of experts in multiple fields to find out their problems and seek some solutions. In this special issue, we also explore ways to boost the overall economy.

With the broader contours of federal Nepal now in place, it is vital that the country quickly embarks on the path of economic development, if only to secure the recent political gains. It is not enough for a handful to feel rich; the common man on the street must feel empowered today to at least fulfil his basic needs and to dream of a better tomorrow.

APEX wants to prosper with the country. We hope we have contributed to the vital political and economic debates in Nepal over the past two years. Perhaps we also entertained a few of you. Let us know. Any kind of feedback is most welcome. On this occasion, we would also like to express our abiding faith in democracy, nationalism, and national unity Again, thanks to our readers and advertisers for bringing us this far. Keep supporting us.

Sachan Thapa

Publishing Director

The Annapurna Express

The party-less Panchayat regime had adopted a policy of attracting educated men and women into politics by reserving four seats in the Rastriya Panchayat for university graduates. In the 125-strong parliament, 90 would be elected from zonal panchayats and 15 from class-based organizations. The king used to nominate another 16. At least four more of the elected MPs would be bachelor’s
degree-holders.

In its early days, the Panchayat system had four tiers of government: villages/towns, districts, zones, and the Rastriya Panchayat at the top. Holders of bachelor’s degree would contest direct first-past-the-post elections, whereas others fought indirect elections or were nominated for the post. For the graduate seats, not only the candidates but the voters were also required to have a bachelor’s degree from a university or similar
educational institution.
A total 105 members of the Rastriya Panchayat were indirectly elected, after going through the successive village/town, district, and zone levels. Only members of zonal panchayats qualified to be Rastriya Panchayat members. So elections for the Rastriya Panchayat was held among the limited members of zonal panchayats. This provision also applied to the class-based organizations.
But the bachelor’s degree-holders were allowed to contest direct elections. A month prior to the poll, an election officer was appointed, also a bachelor’s degree-holder. The officer would supervise, control, and direct the preparation of voters’ list. The officer would also designate a polling station. Salaried government employees did not qualify as candidates but they could cast a vote as government employees above the officer level were also university graduates.
The graduate provision was a unique experiment in the Panchayat system. The indirect elections for 105 seats didn’t ignite much excitement. Only the loyal Panchas were involved there. On the other hand, politically conscious enthusiasts entered the fray for university graduate seats. The contest gave a different vibe to national politics.
There used to be only limited voters in the zonal panchayats. The contestants were chosen on the orders of the zonal administrator who took orders from the palace. Votes had to be cast as ordered. For the graduate contestants, neither the palace nor the zonal administrator had much influence. While other contestants made rounds to the zonal administrators to curry their favor, the graduates toured the country accompanied by educated men and women. They visited different districts for a month looking for university graduates, meeting them, and handing out election
manifestos and pamphlets.
One sad thing about the provision was that the prospective candidates had to pledge ‘allegiance to the party-less system’ while filing their candidacy. After signing the candidacy paper, they were considered to have come into the party-less fold. Upon election, they had to take oath of ‘complete loyalty to the king and his successors’.
The graduate elections were held thrice—in March 1963, August 1967 (the April elections were postponed), and May 1971. The constitution was amended and the fourth elections did not happen. Panchayat supporters had by then concluded that the anti-Panchayat elements were misusing
this provision.
The first graduate elections in 1963 were held to little fanfare. Nepali Congress members were not interested as the party was pursuing armed revolt at the time. However, Nagendra Prasad Singh, who was close to Nepali Congress, contested the election. Advocate Krishna Prasad Dhungana, who was close to the communist party, had also filed candidacy. There were only a few other contestants. The candidacy of Singh and Dhungana got some attention due to their political backgrounds. The first time, Kumar Das Shrestha and Ramji Prasad Sharma got elected besides Singh and
Dhungana O
Next week’s ‘Vault of History’ will discuss emergence of some pro-democratic and pro-republic leaders through graduate constituencies

 “In the beginner's mind there are many possibil­ities but in the expert's, there are few,” says Shunryu Suzuki in his 1970 master­piece Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. With his remarkably ordi­nary but penetrating wisdom put out in under 120 pages, the Zen master goes deep into the minds of the readers and enables them to have a very simple but profound perspective of living.

Anyone who has a begin­ner’s mind has the most beautiful mind. It is a mind with infinite possibilities. It does not have assump­tions. It does not belit­tle things and say—“Oh, I know it already. I have already accomplished that." Instead, it sees things anew each time.

You may be seeing your friends or kids for a hun­dred times, and each time your recognition of them may build on the memory of the last time you saw them. So you are not seeing them alone; you are seeing them as well as the memories that you have in the mind. And there are other impressions of the past that compound your vision.

It’s also the case with a new person or thing that we hav­en’t seen before. Oftentimes when we see them, we have a skeptic’s mind. As we aren’t familiar with them, we feel the need to be critical right from the beginning. So we see them as they are, plus our suspicions of them. While such seeing is sometimes helpful in protecting us, we miss the entire point most of the times.

What happens if we start seeing with a beginner’s mind—unclouded, unprej­udiced, and free from what we already know? What hap­pens when we put aside the ‘I’ and ‘know’ parts when seeing things? We see people and situations exactly as they are. We have a real appre­ciation of them. It widens our vision. It develops our wisdom. It enables us to do many things—understand things precisely, become better prepared to respond to situations, love people, develop compassion, con­serve environment, and keep ourselves out of trou­bles. In a sense, we can live fully.

In this space, I wish to dis­cuss things that resonate with our everyday lives, from a beginner’s perspective. If whatever I talk may sound familiar, I humbly ask the readers to try to see it with fresh eyes, discard the things that do not make sense, and if anything remains, let it remain.

 It is clear that the city of Kath­mandu cannot depend on drinking water ferried on fossil fuel tankers, even though the cur­rent government seems to have embraced this model as a perma­nent one. Not only do the millions of trips made per month foul the already polluted air, it also adds hugely to poor people’s water and health bills. Nepali parliament must pass a resolution that makes it mandato­ry for landlords to provide water to residents before they rent a room. In Kathmandu, landlords are rapidly putting up buildings with no running water, kitchen, toilets, or electricity provided. These rooms are rented from Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 each. The women renting them are often single mothers whose husbands are in the Gulf. The women man­age their finances and run their household by holding down small jobs. They do domestic work, construction, laundry, and other part-time work while taking care of school-going children. Trying to source water from tankers or plastic canisters can be a big bur­den on women who are already overworked with loans, house­work, cooking, laundry, and care responsibilities.

It is unethical and wrong of rich landlords to force poor sin­gle mothers to carry canisters of water five floors up to their rooms. Often the landlord hasn’t provided water not because they don’t have the money—these busi­nessmen own multiple buildings and are cashing in lakhs in month­ly rent—but because they believe their tenants are from the villages and therefore can manage with­out running water. A pump may be provided in the yard which pumps up groundwater. These water sources are inadequate or they do not provide clean water. Tenements of this nature have sprung up freely without govern­ment regulation and control all over Kathmandu and other cities of Nepal since the Loktantric gov­ernment came to power.

The government does the hard­working citizens of Nepal a dis­service if it doesn’t put regula­tions in place which ensures no ghaderi or apartment building can be rented out till the landlord has put in essentials, including a water-harvesting system, toilets with adequate water, electricity connection, and gas canisters, in place. Any building with more than three rental families should be legally mandated to have a water harvesting system with a filter. The government must sent a health inspector to ensure such a system is in place before they give permission to rent. The gov­ernment must also train ward offices to install these systems in a cost-effective manner, with a technical team there to deal with maintenance issues.

A Housing Agency which keeps track of all tenants in Kathmandu, along with a database of landlords, must be created. This ensures that the government can keep track of water harvesting com­pliance. Any complaints about toilets, electricity etc should also be addressed through the agency, which should act as a mediator between landlords and tenants. Tenants are at the mercy of land­lords at the moment. They have no recourse to justice and are liv­ing in what in Western countries are 19th century tenement style buildings with very poor infra­structure. As with the past, these conditions are not inevitable, but a consequence of greed by those who are setting up large build­ings with the explicit intention of cramming as many tenants as possible into small spaces while providing them with the least number of amenities. This kind of exploitative business model is unacceptable in a democratic sys­tem where citizens have rights, including rights to safe housing, clean water, and human dignity.

Meanwhile, by 2025, all water in Kathmandu should come from water harvesting systems and revival of traditional gravity-fu­eled wells. Fossil fueled water tankers must be phased out. Not only are we losing huge amounts of foreign currency earned abroad on ferrying water into the cities, we are also giving this money right back to the oil-rich Gulf states where our citizens are currently working in near bond­ed conditions, and to India which continues to control Nepal’s economy with a vice-like grip.