Submit your Article

A couple of weeks ago, the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) released Nepal’s election observation report 2017. The report drew the attention of the government and onlookers. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strong press statement condemning it, urging the authors of the report to withdraw some controversial recommendations which ‘violated the mandate of the election obser­vation mission’. The report brought to surface—once again—the undercurrents of regional and ethnic polarization in Nepal. Many Madhesi and Janajati political parties and activists sup­ported it, while the rest of the coun­try launched into a tirade against the EU EOM, going so far on social media as to say the EU should be kicked out of Nepal for good. According to the government and the opposition, the EOM not only misinterpreted Nepal’s PR (Proportional Represen­tation) system as a ‘quota’ system, but dived into ‘unauthorized’ terri­tory in their suggestions. However, despite some poor choice of words and issue focus (possibly guided by misinformed political advisers or analysts), the report was in fact rich in content. But that content was overshadowed by the towering bold fonts and strong language used to highlight a couple of recommenda­tions. The need to reform Nepal’s electoral practices and systems was thus put on the back burner.

The EOM report’s reverberations are in some ways reminiscent of a time not long ago, the last time KP Oli was the prime minister: the 2015 Indian blockade. Here we find the same nationalist fer­vor that engulfed not just the political class, but the majority of people who played sheepishly to the tune. That is not to say that the EOM report is not worth criticizing or that its intentions are apolitical—there clearly was some political intent. However, in retrospect, what it has done is fuel the populism of the government.

If the statement from the foreign ministry focused on the ‘mal-in­tent’ of the EU EOM report, the prime minister’s statements which came a couple of days later went so far as to lump all donors into one pool and even suggested the report was payback for Nepal having sent back some ‘religious conversion’ missions a while ago. No one both­ered to check that the report clearly states that the EOM is an entity entirely independent of the EU, let alone of other donors working in Nepal. It clearly states that all opin­ions in the report are of the authors and do not represent those of any EU countries and diplomatic mis­sions in Nepal or outside.

As such, it was pitiful to have to watch one interview and statement after another talk about the EU as a grave enemy to Nepal as though its offices should be shut down and its diplomats sent home immediately.

Having said that, it is important to be vigilant about the kinds of activities that donors, including the EU, promote in Nepal. On the burning issue of the ‘Khas-Arya’, the suggestion that this group should be removed from the PR system stems from an understanding that the group is an ‘elite social group by birth’. That is 31 percent of the population and the EU should know better than to make such controver­sial statements, especially with this particular government in place and the wide public support it enjoys. It should have been clear to the EU a controversy was in the making when it drafted those recommendations.

All these controversies are only working to make this prime minister stronger. The nationalist wave that was created during the Indian block­ade is boosted by factors like the EOM’s report and KP Oli continues to ride that wave and the populist sentiment behind it. In the eyes of the PM, the opposition is weak, and the civil society is discredited, disorganized and politicized. The media is focused on other things. If the international community and the donors can be discredited, in Oli’s eyes, that’s one more threat he has subdued. Using populist and nationalist rhetoric to discredit the international community could give Oli even more of a free hand than he already has.

Defense is often a taboo topic in Nepal. Writing on defense from a strictly nationalist perspective is, for many, a no-no because you are not only accused of being undemocratic and unrealistic, but also a lobbyist for the army. You are also deemed insensitive to your neighbors’ security concerns. Therefore, a lot of defense-re­lated writing one gets to read follows one of two lines: that we need to downsize the military or we need to address the neighbors’ security concerns, as if we are irresponsible and we delib­erately harbor forces acting against Chinese and Indian interests. Therefore, it is not wrong to say that most foreign- and defense-related articles we read make no sense. (And it’s astonishing that our security experts are miraculously silent on the threats we face from our neighbors on economic, environ­mental and security fronts).The mistaken liberalism that many of our analysts subscribe to views a strong military as a challenge to democracy; hence there is no need to strengthen it. And this runs counter to the suggestion they often make, i.e. we need to address our neigh­bors’ security concerns. To assure our neighbors that we take both our and their security concerns seriously, we need to have a well-equipped military.

The Nepal Army is under- and-ill-equipped. During the Military Day celebrations each year on the Mahashivaratri day, the army has absolutely no new weapons to display to instill a sense of security among the gen­eral public. Now contrast that to the annual military parades elsewhere where the people get to see modern weapons procured by their armed forces. But for us, it is always the same drill and equipment. It’s disheartening to see the army display bulldozers and other construction equip­ment instead of new weapons—guns and artilleries—in the annual military parade.

The situation is pathetic, to say the least. The Nepal Army does not even have sufficient stan­dard issue rifles for its troops. Its arsenal is mostly a hodgepodge of old weapons donated by or bought from China, the UK, India and the US. Some weapons are so outdated that even the coun­tries that produced them do not use them anymore. For example, the UK-made ferret armored car, which the Nepal Army proudly displays on every possible occa­sion to awe us civilians, is no lon­ger used by the British Army. We the civilians have seen it so many times that we aren’t awed by it anymore. It feels like a musket in the age of advanced rifles!

The anti-aircraft guns, some of which were made in 1956, were bought from China. In fact, their import is what led to the Indian economic embargo of 1989-1990. These guns are not very effective in securing our air­space in the age of digital technol­ogy and rapid advancements in fighter jet technology.

The Indian Army will be retiring the INSAS rifles because of their many faults. But the Indian gov­ernment wants our troops to keep using them. Therefore it came as no surprise when the CoAS Rajen­dra Chettri told the legislature parliament in December 2015 that 45 percent of the weapons in the army’s arsenal are antiquated and need to be replaced immediately. But thanks to the mistaken liberals dominating the security discourse and the political leaders with little or no knowledge of security, the army is cash-strapped and forced to accept help from every possible country, making it probably the only army that accepts help from countries with such conflicting interests as China, India and the US. So much for the brave Gorkh­ali pride!

Now, can Nepal address its and its neighbors’ security concerns with the antiquated weapons? Perhaps it’s about time we trusted our men and women in uniform and made them feel proud of the job they do by equipping them with the latest weapons. That would also make us feel more secure.

To tattoo or not to tattoo—that is the question. For the majority of youth these days, it’s not ‘will I get a tattoo?’, but ‘what tattoo will I get?’ At what point did tat­toos step out of the army and into the general public? I ask Google that question and surprisingly the answer is that in Western culture, tattoos became popular in the 1960s among bikers and hippies. And by the 1990s tattoos were most popu­lar among, strangely enough, white suburban females. Certainly, growing up, I do not remember anyone having a tattoo except for old ex-army guys who had mundane things like skulls and crossbones and hearts with their lover’s name. One friend, when we were both in our 20s, had a selection of bad tattoos on her inner wrist. But she had been a gang member in her younger days and her tattoos were related to that time.

The tattoos I saw in the early 2000s were still not what you would call pieces of art. Then suddenly tattoos came out of the dark into the spotlight. With better inks and equipment tattoos are now much more sophisticated, and everyone wants one.

Tattoos have of course been around for millennia. Here in Nepal Tharu women decorated their legs with tattoos to ensure they appeared beautiful to their future husbands. Star, moon and sun tattoos can be seen on the faces of Newar, Gurung and Magar women. These tattoos were made with a mixture of fire dust, milk and plant extracts. Recently tradi­tional tattoos have been dying out although I am interested to know if they are being revived among the young generation now that tattoos are seen on every celebrity.

I think the middle generation, the parents, would have something to say about this and wonder how many Nepali sons and daughters have hidden tattoos. I once com­mented that there are a lot of Bud­dhas, Shivas and the like tattooed on Nepali guys. I was told “father cannot complain if we have god tattooed on our bodies…” And if granny scolds, just point to the little crescent moon above her lip.

You must have guessed by now that I am getting round to talking about the International Tattoo Con­vention being held here in Kath­mandu this weekend. I’m an avid supporter of this event and annu­ally spend at least two whole days soaking up the atmosphere and mar­veling at the talent of the artists. Artists from all over the world come to take part in this event but among the best of them are artists from Nepal itself. There is no denying their artistic ability and local artists regularly take away red ribbons from this event.

Many people go to the convention specifically to get a tattoo; and it’s quite an experience getting inked under these circumstances. Here is an opportunity to get a lifetime piece of artwork from an international art­ist at a fraction of the price it would cost you in Europe, the US or Austra­lia. Visiting artists are encouraged to price their work at a rate affordable to the locals. And the majority are happy to do this. Remember to get there early to grab a time slot. I have been disappointed twice when the artist I wanted was too busy with other clients.

But even if you are not getting a tattoo, there is plenty to see. Watch others getting inked; be amazed at the heavily tattooed artists and visi­tors this event attracts; enjoy tradi­tional dances; witness the daily com­petition for the best tattoo and the ‘best of show’; get a piercing; watch traditional hand poked tattoos being created, and perhaps this year there will be someone doing scarification or some other extremely painful looking work. And why not count the number of Nepali guys being god inked! See you there.

The European Union is once again at the center of controversy in Nepal. The recommendation by its election observers that the Nepali state do away with the reservation for Khas-Aryas in the parliament did not go down well with the government or with any rational Nepali citizen. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to issue a strong statement that clearly told the EU and other missions in Nepal to stop making such silly recommendations and not comment on our internal matters. While some leaders, notably Upen­dra Yadav and organizations that have a dubious record of receiving financial help from the EU or from numerous INGOs funded by it, were supportive of the EU’s recommenda­tion, others rightly viewed it as an unnecessary provocation.

In response, the EU said it stands by its report and it is up to the gov­ernment to work (or not) on its rec­ommendation. It offered to talk with the government on the issue, which the government rightly declined. The KP Oli-led government, despite some recent misadventures in for­eign policy, has yet again proved that it will not back down from call­ing a spade a spade. And unlike in the past, the preaching days seem to be over for the foreigners.

The beginning

According to a retired Nepal Army general who has closely followed the Maoist insurgency, the Maoists used ethnic politics to cripple the nation. He believes that the EU was the brain behind ethnic politics, either for car­rying out a silly political experiment or for facilitating proselytization. “Otherwise how do you explain that Nepal’s is the only communist insur­gency in the world that received financial help from the churches in Europe?” he asks. The Maoists, after entering mainstream politics, made a U-turn on their pledges of ethnic states as they learned the hard way that the majority of Nepalis simply do not care about ethnicity-based feder­alism. It is not only impossi­ble but also impractical in Nepal’s context. But the EU is still fascinat­ed by the idea and has found others, especially the intellectu­als and other regional par­ties with an ethnic agen­da, to do its bidding.

Doesn’t suit EU

Last year when the Catalonians voted for independence from Spain, the EU and all of its mem­ber states either remained quiet or issued statements supporting the Spanish state.

Imagine a scenario where a prov­ince in Nepal opts for indepen­dence. The EU will not even wait for a referendum. It will not use the argument it used to support the Spanish state that there is no provi­sion whatsoever for independence in the Spanish constitution. The irony here is that one reason the Catalonians wanted independence from Spain was to preserve their unique Catalan identity.

In Nepal, the EU has no prob­lem meeting secessionist forces and advocating on their behalf, as if the notions of sovereignty and territorial integrity apply only to wealthy countries, its member states or where it has strategic interests. (Meeting such secessionist forces is in direct violation of the Vienna Convention for diplomatic relations that the Europeans themselves helped develop.)

Further, the EU is the last body authorized to talk about inclusion because it is driven by race and religion—despite the liberal, all-en­compassing façade it maintains to preach poor countries like ours. Otherwise, how would one explain its reluctance to grant membership to Turkey, which for the very pur­pose has made significant amend­ments to its constitution?

And the EU also has no right to preach others about the virtues of democracy and inclusion or suggest a particular political or development model to follow, as most Europe­an countries developed because of colonialism and the exploitation of the weak. The poverty and conflict in much of Africa today is the result of European colonial exploitation. If PN Shah and the Khas-Aryas are to be blamed for Nepal’s current prob­lems, then King Leopold II, Queen Victoria, Cecil Rhodes and the white Europeans must be blamed for the ongoing problems in Congo and Zim­babwe.

Similarly, anti-Semitism was wide­spread up until the 20th century and the Jews who were in Europe for centuries did not feel very welcome in the countries that unabashedly teach us, the poor countries, the val­ue of inclusion. The “moral” Europe fought two wars with China to keep on selling opium there and creat­ed divisions among Indians along religious lines. Moreover, Europe rejected Japan’s demand to include the racial equality clause in the char­ter of the League of Nations in 1919.

Racist within

Even today there are not many African, Arab and Asian descendants who make it to high positions in the bureaucracies or governments of European countries, although they have lived there for centuries. Nor do European countries accept or recognize Asian and African dialects or Arabic as one of their official lan­guages. Many European countries are now seeing a revival of the right­ist anti-immigrant forces. How many French of African descent have been ministers or prime ministers? How many non-white Belgians? And how many Europeans of Arab origin hold important government or bureau­cratic positions in Europe?

Has the EU suggested that its member states give reservations to their ethnic minorities—Arabs, Afri­cans and Asians—or limit the dominant group’s rep­resentation in their parliament or bureaucracy? Maybe it’s about time it did so because the governments and par­liaments there seem biased toward one group. According to a news story published in The Guardian (July 27, 2017), “Jean-Claude Juncker leads a European com­mission cabinet, or college, that is entirely white…The EU’s executive has been accused of being blind to black and minority ethnic commu­nities after they failed to feature in a new “diversity” initiative to make the European commission’s senior posts more representative…Within the European parliament, of the 776 MEPs elected in 2014, fewer than 20 are thought to be from a minority ethnic background, although no official statistics are held.”

Germany’s EU commission­er, Günther Oettinger, is known for his openly homophobic and racist comments. When some­one, for instance, pointed that calling Chinese “slant eyes” may be racist, he replied that his comment should be understood in the “larger context”.

Is the European Union itself diverse? “If you want to see diversity in the European institutions, look at the faces of the cleaners leaving the building [the European Parliament in Brussels] early in the morning and contrast that with the white MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] and officials entering,” Politico quotes Syed Kamall, a Brit­ish Muslim who leads the European Conservatives and Reformists in the European Parliament.

The EU preaches from a bully pulpit in Nepal because our leaders and intellectuals find it advantageous to remain quiet in the face of blatant violations of all diplomatic protocols. Nobody wants to lose their perks or be labeled undemocratic by speaking up to a regional organization that mol­lycoddles them. Such silence only emboldens the EU.

We have talked a lot about the criminal-political nexus; perhaps it is time we talked about the (I)NGOs-intellectuals-politicians nexus and ways to break it. If not, it will not be the last time the EU offers its provocative and dubious recommendations.

Doctor prescribes

Just as Dr Mahathir Mohamad implies in his memoirs, ‘A Doctor in the House’, had Malaysia followed the Euro­peans’ suggestions, it would still be a poor, fragmented and dysfunctional country. Many eth­nic Europeans, he writes, “are for­ever offering unsolicited advice, apparently unashamed that when they left Malaya to the Malays in 1957, it was a poor and underdevel­oped country… still, they seem blind and deaf to why I will not accept their advice. Many of them think we should uphold liberal democra­cy modeled on their own national practices, forgetting that our social, cultural, religious, ethnic and eco­nomic composition is completely different from theirs.”

According to the Doctor, “It is the negatives that they see and imagine, not our positive achievements,” and “behave as if they are superior and generally know better than Asians.”

Perhaps, it’s time for a Nepali Mahathir.