Submit your Article

 I’m frequently asked why I live in Nepal. I know a lot of other long-term expats are asked the same thing. Whether we came for work, love, or Dharma, I think that once we cross a certain number of years of precarious ‘non-resident residency’, the only logical answer seems to veer towards “because it’s there”. In this 100th anniversary year of the birth of Sir Edmund Hillary, there has been a lot of press cov­erage, both good and bad, about Mount Everest. So I thought I could also get my penny’s worth in. But with perhaps a different twist rather than the ‘should or shouldn’t peo­ple still be climbing this mountain’ debate. A mountain now more iconic than technical, more per­sonal demon than abode of the gods. So here goes.

It has been 66 years since Sir Edmund and Tenzing Norgay stood on top of the world. In those days permits were given out at the rate of one per year. Today permits are given out in much larger numbers. With results as we have seen in the media over the last few weeks. This can perhaps be a reflection of our journey in Nepal: at first quite rare, we expats are now ‘ten-a-penny’, as the saying goes. Seen perhaps as taking up space or being a nec­essary evil? Quality and quantity getting confused over and over, and regularly turned around. The sweet and sour.

I had always known there was a database of climbs, appropriately called the Himalayan Database, which records feats of mountaineer­ing madness—the record breaking attempts, the successes, and the failures. I have even met the original keeper of this record—the Late Miss Elizabeth Hawley. This fierce woman was one of the group of early expats to the country. However, it was only very recently that I learned that the database started basically as a hobby for the freelance reporter that she was in 1960s Nepal.

I think like many of us, Liz Hawley arrived on a whim, stayed with a pas­sion, and remained longer ‘because it’s there’. I also learned recently that renowned mountaineer Ralf Dujmovits, who has summited Ever­est and all the 14 eight-thousand­ers, is reported to have said when asked about why people today still climb Everest, “because everyone is there”.

Perhaps that is the answer then. Do long-term expats stay in Nepal because “everyone is there”? Cer­tainly there comes a tipping point when you have more friends in one country than in another. As we age we lose parents and siblings. Chil­dren are no longer dependent on us and strike out on their own adven­tures. Or we stay because we have a Nepali partner and children who are here. As I have mentioned before, the transient nature of expat life means that friends come and go on a regular basis.

At some point I stopped trying to make friends with people who are here on a two-year contract. More heart-wrenching perhaps is the number of Nepali friends who have left to find their own Shangri-La in another country. On the other hand, one well-known American in her 80s who has been here for considerable time, recently recalled arriving at Kathmandu airport (air-strip back then) in 1958. While being driven towards her new posting in the American Embassy, gazing around at the ring of snow-capped moun­tains and greenery of the Valley, she thought to herself, “Wow, I am going to be here for two whole years!” For her it might be she wasn’t here so much on a whim, but definitely she stayed on a passion and con­tinues perhaps because “everyone is there”.

 On 19 November 1951, King Tribhuvan announced the formation of a government that “would be popular and rule according to the wishes of the cit­izens.” The king’s statement also said: “Until the views of the citi­zens can be ascertained through elections, we feel the government should be headed by the leader of the largest outfit approved by the people, and someone who can carry out duties in an ideal and noble manner.” It was Matrika Prasad Koirala whom Tribhuvan chose as the first civilian prime minister following the downfall of the Rana oligarchy and the resignation of the last Rana Prime Minister Mohan Shumsher.

Matrika was the president of the Nepali Congress and the main com­mander of the armed revolution against the Rana regime. But he was not a party ideologue. It was his younger brother Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala who led the party’s ideological front. But BP could not be the prime minister then, as he was not in the good books of internal and external forces.

Mohan Shumsher continued hold­ing the prime minister’s post fol­lowing the overthrow of the Rana regime on 18 February 1951. But disputes between him and the Con­gress persisted. On 2 October 1951, King Tribhuvan formed a 35-mem­ber ‘advisory board’ to assist and counsel the Cabinet, but without consulting with PM Mohan Shum­sher or any cabinet member. This hurt Mohan Shumsher no end.

He announced his resignation on 12 November 1951 amid political disputes and discontents. Congress ministers had already resigned by then. The resignations opened the door for King Tribhuvan to form a new government, which he asked the Congress to lead.

Within the Congress, there were arguments over whether Matrika or BP should be the prime minister. Matrika reasoned that neither the king nor India would accept BP. The reason Tribhuvan was angry with BP was that he had resigned from the home minister’s post with­out consulting with the king. Mean­while, Nehru sent a letter to King Tribhuvan saying India too would not accept BP. BP then agreed to Matrika’s nomination as the prime minister.

Matrika’s cabinet had eight Con­gress representatives and six inde­pendent ones. The latter consisted of Rana courtiers and King Tribhu­van’s loyalists.

The majority of Congress lead­ers were unhappy with Matrika’s selection as the prime minister. The candidate of their choice was BP, who not only had a clear political perspective and some experience as a home minister, but was also closer to party members.

Also unhappy with Matrika was a senior Cabinet minister, Keshar Shumsher, who was on the Rana prime ministerial roll and had eyed the top post.

Following the formation of the government, the Congress started issuing more and more instruc­tions to it. It even had a debate on whether the government was bigger than the party.

The fact that Matrika was both the prime minister and the Con­gress president became a topic of contention within the party, which subscribed to a policy of ‘one indi­vidual, one post’. This meant limit­ing Matrika to the prime minister’s post. Congress leaders also started making loud demands for a General Convention. Matrika insisted that the GC should not elect party lead­ership and that he should be chosen unopposed.

Next week’s ‘Vault of history’ column will discuss the tussle between Matrika and BP over party presidency

 Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli returned home on June 16 from a nine-day visit to a number of European capitals. Both Oli and his office claimed the visit was a success. The PMO issued a long statement recounting his successful engage­ments, which looked more like a detailed itinerary. Surely the prime minister and his entou­rage had a busy schedule, yet the visit raised more questions than it answered.Let’s start with his trip to the United Kingdom. While one could argue about the wisdom of meet­ing outgoing Prime Minister The­resa May, what sticks out as a sore point is Oli’s failure to meet the British monarch. Our mandarins should have pressed their Brit­ish counterparts for a meeting with the Queen. The inability to ensure diplomatic reciprocity is a serious failure—particularly when even low-ranking British officials routinely meet our PM and the President.

Despite all the hype about marking 203 years of diplomatic relations, Oli had to settle for a meeting with Prince Harry, who is sixth in line to the British throne. By our prime minister’s own admission, the UK also cold-shoul­dered Nepal’s proposal to review the 1947 tripartite agreement gov­erning the recruitment of Nepalis into the British Army.

The interview with the BBC was ill-advised too. Why would Prime Minister Oli agree to an interview that focused on the issue of traffic jam on the Everest? It would have been more fitting for the Tourism Department’s spokesperson.

Oli’s trip to France was also anything but memorable. He did not meet French President Emmanuel Macron and failed to sign the two agreements his minister for Information and Communications had pushed for.

Lapses during the Europe vis­it are a result of poor planning, lack of accountability and par­ty functionaries prevailing over career officials. Overall, these are symptoms of a severe weakening of state capability and an absence of adequately-trained human resources in the public sector.

Post 1990 mess

There is a convergence of opin­ion on the erosion of the Nepali state’s capability post-1990. Anecdotal evidence suggests that seems to be the case in many areas. That process picked up pace in the post-2006 arrange­ment—as political accommoda­tion and expediency took priority over state principles, expertise and experience.

Many argue that despite its flaws, and the uneven play­ing-field the Panchayat regime created, it did promote a certain level of meritocracy. They point to high-profile diplomats and plan­ners the system nurtured; despite its authoritarian structure, it fos­tered a learning culture and even tolerated dissent within certain confines—while making long-term strategic investments that the regime considered important. I am no apologist for the Panchayat era, but there is no harm in pick­ing good lessons from the past.

Broadly speaking, a state’s capa­bility is its ability to govern inter­nally while projecting strength externally—reflected in the nature and level of engagements abroad. Internal governance encompasses the abilities to deliver results for citizens, bureaucratic processes, and maintenance of social cohe­sion, ideally through democratic processes.

While the government’s abili­ty to collect taxes and increase development spending in terms of sheer volume has increased since the 1990s, anecdotal evidence suggests a waning of state capa­bility to deliver. Having a bigger revenue base and the ability to earmark an increasing amount of money for different projects is not enough; being able to spend it meaningfully is a better indicator of state capacity.

Even though this government projects bold ambitions, it has not made steady efforts to build state capacity to deliver on its prom­ises. Again, some of us might be confused with the government trying to legislate on internal affairs better—as reflected in the rush to introduce different laws. But that’s not the same as having the capacity to turn those intents into reality.

Short-termism

The point being that there are inadequate human resources within the government system to follow through on the high-pitched rhetoric around pros­perity and good governance—and the government is doing little to generate skilled human resources. For instance, rail­way connectivity seems to be our national priority, yet what has the government done in the past year to create skilled human resources to maintain and run a railway network?

Bureaucratic processes are in a shambles with neither upward nor downward accountability. And a massive increase in the number of political appointees continues to promote ad-hocism and short-term thinking. This has been further aggravated by a constitutional restructuring of the state—without the de-facto devolution of power to the prov­inces and local bodies. The state restructuring should have been followed by an informed push toward revamping the structure, size and work culture of the civil service. Ideally, this should have started with an honest organiza­tion and management survey by an independent third party—nei­ther connected to the politicians nor to the civil service.

The net result of all these are systematic weaknesses in the state’s delivery mechanism even when there is a strong govern­ment at the helm. To be fair, the government inherited much of the problem and should not be blamed for the accumulated mess. But the tragedy is that it is continuing down the same path of short-term thinking that the previous short-lived governments were driven by.

 Every year, the dry season brings with it forest fires, especially in Nepal’s lowlands. In 2016, a total of 5,630 wildfire incidents burned down 222,046 hectares of land and led to the death of 15 people and injured about 100. The past two years were relatively better due to greater rainfall. Sometimes forest fires occur natu­rally, for instance after lightning. But in Nepal, most of them are attribut­able to anthropogenic causes such as agricultural expansion, slash burn­ing, charcoal making, and traditional rituals. Forest fires in Nepal generally vary in extent, frequency and effect. This creates adverse impact on forest ecosystems, wildlife habitat, and local peoples’ livelihood.

Management of forest fires is challenging in Nepal because of the country’s diverse geographies, forest types and populations. Because of this, forest fire intensity and man­agement practices as well as sup­pression techniques are different in lowlands and in highlands. Man­agement of forest fires is especially problematic in highlands because of their difficult terrains.

There has been a long debate over the pros and cons of forest fires. Done under controlled conditions, they can be beneficial as the poten­tial fuel for big and unmanaged fires decreases. Fires can control insects and pests and remove non-native species which threaten native spe­cies. They add nutrients for trees and other vegetation by producing ash. Local herders in high mountains set fire to grasslands expecting new shoots that are highly nutritious for their livestock. But uncontrolled fires can lead to inconceivable calamities.

There are solid laws under the For­est Act (1993) on forest fires, which have provisions of fines of up to Rs 10,000 and/or imprisonment of up to a year. But very few cases have been filed. In addition, the gov­ernment has been implementing different activities in line with the Forest Fire Management Strategy (2010) and the Forest Sector Strategy (2015-2025). Various provisions such as research, institutional and tech­nological improvement, awareness, training, firefighting tools support are mentioned in these strategies, but few are actually being imple­mented. Provincial governments too have allocated funds for such activi­ties but, again, insufficiently.

Besides this, Nepal has various community-based forest manage­ment programs. Now local govern­ments have started collecting a 10 percent income tax from each com­munity forest. Despite this, most local governments have not incor­porated any forest management activity.

There are several techniques to minimize the risk of forest fires. Some developed countries have initiated real time forest heat and fuel index mapping as early warn­ing. In Nepal, the government, in close collaboration with the Inter­national Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), started an SMS-based forest fire alert. But research shows that most stakeholders have little idea about this system.

Human activities are a major cause of forest fires. But at the same time, the efforts of local communities in fighting forest fires are equally admirable. To ensure meaningful participation of local communities in forest fire management, various motivational, technical and financial sources along with institutional and policy commitments are necessary.

The 2008 incident in Ramechhap district when 13 army officials were killed while trying to suppress a local fire was indicative of the high risks of fire management. It is imperative we have skilled human resources for such a sensitive job. Advanced firefighting training, sufficient tools, and insurance are important for those fighting deadly fires. Each of the three levels of government could take steps to mitigate damages from forest fires. With the new land use management plans, each govern­ment can identify forest fire risk areas under its jurisdiction.

Likewise, collecting data after fire incidents is vital for finding out their cause, extent and effect and to plan future activities to restore forest ecosystems. There isn’t one magic formula to control and manage for­est fires. Experiences from around the world show that only broadly collaborative and coordinated efforts are likely to work when it comes to managing as well as mitigating the damages from forest fires.

The author is a forest officer with the Ministry of Forests and Environment