Submit your Article

 The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which assesses the state of biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides to society, last week released a report stating that one million species are at risk of extinction. They estimate there are 5.5 million species of insects, of which 10 percent (500,000 species) are threatened. In addition, there are 2.5 million species of animals and plants (but not insects), of which 25 percent (500,000 species) are threatened. (This 25 percent figure is estimated from IUCN Red List assessments.)

Whatever the numbers, which will surely be hotly debated among conservationists, biolo­gists and industrialists for years to come, it is clear that the volume of animal and plant life all over the planet is declining in alarming numbers.

Humans are the main culprits. Their industrial agricultural prac­tices which tolerate only mono­culture and aerial applications of toxic herbicides and pesticides, huge cities of concrete, massive toxic emissions from fossil fuels, millions of tons of toxic plastic objects which break down into a soup of microplastic in the water­ways, pharmacological waste, and a dizzying array of chemicals used in daily life are contaminating every millimeter of earth, water, sky and air.

And then there is the hubris of a human-centric worldview where the planet is viewed as terra nulla for humans to colonize. Every other species must make way, or die if need be, for our smallest needs.

Nepal may feel separate from these discussions. And yet we cannot afford not to be part of this global dialogue. Our shops are full of pesticides. Our water­ways are full of plastic bottles. Our supermarkets are full of beauty products and cosmetics contain­ing innocent sounding ingredients which cause endocrine disrup­tion, leading to a “thyroid” health crisis. Our chickens are full of last resort antibiotics.

When I visited Jumla in 1993, I was 20. With just a junior techni­cal assistant from the NGO that had hired me to write a report about its work in Jumla as a guide, I made my way across the dis­trict for six weeks. Chicken were kept in close proximity to sleep­ing areas, and people were often so disturbed by the pests on the birds they sprinkled DDT onto their beds before going to sleep. I was offered some DDT to sprin­kle on my bed, which I politely declined. Lecturing people on the harm created by this practice was useless—they felt there was no alternative if they wanted a good night’s sleep.

I often think about this dis­turbing memory and wonder how many of the cancers occur­ring in Nepalis are triggered by agro-chemicals. There was a young woman I met at the Nepal­gunj airport on that trip who was ravaged by breast cancer. More recently, I was in Dhulikhel when an elderly lady on a bus told me she was undergoing treatment for cancer. She was obviously sick, and I wondered how much of the beautiful landscape outside was scarred with invisible poison.

We have been made to believe Western science and its inven­tions are the height of intelligence and infallible wisdom. Yet how can a worldview that encourages people to keep making danger­ous chemicals and compounds with not a single thought about its end result be ethical, rational or wise? In Eastern philosophi­cal traditions (different strands of Jainism, Hinduism and Bud­dhism) the ethical consequences of harming another life is front and center in every action we take. How could we have been made to believe that this “sci­ence” which keeps inventing one toxic killer substance after anoth­er is not just a way of thinking we must all adopt on a global level, but indeed the only way? What made us so deluded we have no effective way to push back at this genocidal regime and say: “No, we refuse to adopt a way of life which is murdering a million spe­cies on earth”?

Homo sapiens—Latin for “the wise man”—was the name given to humans to indicate their ability to think. Scientists often boast intelligence marks humans out from other beings who cannot think with the same cognitive complexity. Our cognitive abili­ties are far superior to any other species on earth, the scientists assure us. They’ve done the stud­ies, so they should know.

And yet how could we be an intelligent species if we’re destroying the very basis of what makes us alive—the web of life which sustains us on earth—all destroyed with no end in sight? We may have the military, indus­trial and chemical arsenal that no other animal has. But then no other animal attacks its own basis of life the way Homo sapiens has so successfully done, with the help of science and technology.

Does this mean we are not as intelligent as we think we are? Does it mean we are missing a chip—the ecological quotient chip that all other animals come so beautifully equipped with? Will we manage to decimate the whales who survived for 2.5 mil­lion years? Will we kill even the cockroaches, the ultimate survi­vor? Are we bringing the web of life crashing down, all the while clapping at our own brilliance? Perhaps it is time to change our name to Homo insapiens—the foolish human species.

 General Nara Shumsher Rana was aghast when he heard K.I. Singh’s plan to oust the king. Singh had made Rana swear on the Gita to keep the plan a secret. But the vow did not stand a chance in the face of such an enormous conspiracy. When Rana revealed the plan to King Mahendra, the monarch said to him, “I didn’t think Singh was such a bad egg. Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it.” A few days later, Mahendra dissolved Singh’s cabinet.

Singh claimed he was made a victim of a conspiracy because he wanted to take action against those who plundered state coffers. He was trying to initiate a property audit by setting up a ‘Transaction Examination Commission’, which the palace had okayed. But his government was dissolved before he could do so. He had also tried to legally challenge his defeat in the 1959 general elections, including by inviting Indian legal experts to Nepal, again to no avail.

K.I. Singh desperately wanted to be prime minister again, but the palace—considering his rebellious nature—did not oblige

K.I. Singh was among the first politicians to welcome the December 1960 royal coup against the elected government. He was happy and optimistic about the downfall of the multi-party system and the advent of the Panchayat regime. Singh considered the parliamentary system ‘inauspicious’.

Although he was arrested in the royal coup, he was released after eight days. As a reward for his support to the Panchayat regime, King Mahendra nominated him as the chairperson of the Royal Council, a post that Singh had coveted. Singh also wanted to be placed higher in the political hierarchy than the deputy chairperson of the royal cabinet. According to Surendra Pratap Shah, then Royal Council Secretary, Singh asked King Mahendra whether he would be above “that sanyasi” in the hierarchy. (Singh was referring to Tulsi Giri.) Mahendra replied, “Each person is important in their own place. You will preside over the Royal Council, which Giri will attend. But he will be above you in hierarchy.” (Nepal Weekly, 23 October 2011).

Singh had been declared chairperson of the Royal Council, but before he took the oath of office, he announced his resignation, saying, “I cannot work under such a sanyasi. I would rather not be the chairperson.” The palace did not take Singh’s resignation favorably. Public expressions demanding action against those who defied royal edict were also being voiced.

Singh became disenchanted with the Panchayat regime when he could not get what he wanted. In February 1964, he announced a Satyagraha (passive resistance), arguing that corruption had worsened under the regime, that people were imprisoned without trial and that citizens were declared anti-national and barred from entering the country. This posed a challenge to the regime, which responded by arresting Singh.

He served a two-year prison sentence, after which he again joined the royal regime—first by entering local politics in his home district of Doti and subsequently by being elected a member of the National Panchayat. Singh desperately wanted to be prime minister, but the palace—considering his rebellious nature—did not oblige.

On 9 July 1979, he resigned from the National Panchayat and began advocating a multi-party system in the run up to the May 1980 national referendum. He made fiery speeches and left no stone unturned to discredit the Panchayat regime, going so far as to sling mud at high-level Panchas and accuse particular individuals of being ‘smugglers’ and ‘characterless’.

But after the referendum produced a victory for the Panchayat system, Singh saw that the days of the regime were not numbered. And he contested an election to the National Panchayat from the district of Rupandehi, where he had once waged a democratic rebellion. He won with flying colors, and was even considered a strong candidate for prime minister. But the palace wanted to continue with Surya Bahadur Thapa, as a reward for his role in the Panchayat’s victory in the referendum.

K.I. Singh died of cancer on 4 October 1982 while undergoing treatment in Bangkok. He was 75. In his political life, he received many appellations, such as ‘revolutionary’, ‘rebel’, ‘dacoit’, ‘capitulator’, ‘compromiser’ and ‘opportunist’.

The next column in the ‘Vault of history’ series will discuss the Indian military posts set up on the border with China, partly to contain K.I. Singh who was thought of as close to Beijing

 Now that summer is finally here I feel inspired to eat more salad. Trying to get into the fitness thing is always a challenge but this time round I’m determined to also get into nuts and seeds. As a child and teenager I didn’t like nuts (except salted peanuts). Even later I pretty much turned my nose up at almonds and the like. Perhaps the ones found in Scotland in those days were old, bordering on stale? So when did I develop a taste for these parcels of natural goodness? Perhaps when I first came to Nepal.

Which was in the winter and fresh peanuts in shells were seen on every street corner. Warm from roasting. But living on the Tarai I don’t remember there being many varieties of nuts around. Ultimately, I think my nutty attraction started around the time when the dieting fraternity decided that nuts were no longer ‘fattening’, but contained ‘good fats’ and therefore we were free to add them to our daily diet. In fact we were positively urged to add them.

Walnuts probably came first for me. Walnut and beetroot salad is still very much on my menu. And, I hate to admit it, but I never saw raw beetroot until a few years ago. The beetroot I ate in Scotland came pickled in a jar. And I honestly thought the color was an additive! But remember I come from a country where fried Mars Bars (in batter) is a real thing! Sunflower seeds and pumpkin seeds came next. Sprinkled over the top of a salad or in morning muesli. (I can see my child self making a face.)

With rising awareness on health issues and more reasonable prices, I think more and more people will be going nutty over seeds

I was introduced to chia seeds a couple of years ago and I started adding those to yogurt, muesli and salads also. Flax seeds are something I have come across more recently, and now use both the seeds and oil (am I not good?). My mother always has fresh blueberries in the fridge, but I have yet to develop a taste for them. However, I am trying really hard to incorporate the dried variety into my salads too. Whether any of these make us more healthy I guess depends on all sorts of personal factors, but if they taste good, why not? (Reading this back my child self is asking if I have turned into a bird…)

But why are they so pricy here? Can seeds and nuts really be this expensive or are they just marked up for the niche market which is mainly expats? Most of the above were once only to be found at the organic markets around town and are still prohibitively expensive. I guess it’s economics of scale. As a result, I used these seeds, nuts, and dried fruits sparingly, thinking more about my budget than my health.

But good news! I have now found all of the above (and more) at a more affordable price, aiming I guess at a growing local market that is becoming health conscious. Interestingly, the producers’ website states they have been in operation for over 30 years! It doesn’t explain further so I think perhaps in the past they specialized in the more traditional nuts for festive occasions. Sold now in 100g and 250g (unfortunately plastic) jars with the benefits and eating suggestions printed on the labels, the nuts, seeds and dried fruits are still a bit pricy, but nowhere as expensive as those in the organic markets.

Definitely this is still a bit of a niche market but with rising awareness on health issues and more reasonable prices, I think more and more people will be going nutty over seeds (and nuts, and dried fruits…) And although this is not an advert for the company I know readers now want to know its name. Morsel International. Google it!

 Even as annual tourist arrival numbers remain upbeat—crossing the magical million-mark last year—data on the average daily spending by tourists paint a dismal picture. The latest figures compiled by the Nepal Tourism Board (NTB) show an 11 percent decline in daily spending to $47—from $53 in 2017.

The government wants to double last year’s numbers to two million by 2020, while increasing the average daily tourist spending (to $62) as well as the average length of stay. Although these three goals are not necessarily contradictory, Nepal has seen a pattern where an increase in tourist numbers and the average length of stay tends to bring down the average daily spending.

For instance, in 2015, immediately after the deadly earthquake, while tourist arrival numbers plummeted over safety concerns, the average daily tourist spending was a high of $68.5. The primary reason behind the high spending was that tourists who came that year mostly stayed in Kathmandu and Pokhara and in hotels with infrastructure deemed safe—where prices are higher than in other establishments. Of course, the figures were partly skewed by the high prices in the aftermath of the blockade and humanitarian and aid officials travelling to Nepal in high numbers.

Is average daily tourist spending a fair indicator of tourism’s increasing contribution to the economy? Is the government’s goal of increasing daily tourist spending to $62 even realistic given the complexities involving international payment gateways?

The math

Average daily spending figures are derived from gross reported tourism earnings divided by the number of tourists—factoring in the average length of stay. In simple terms, the greater the tourist numbers and the average length of their stay, the higher the likelihood of daily spending figures getting depressed. Overall, in Nepal’s case, an increase in numbers usually means an influx of backpackers who travel on budget—given the state of infrastructures and connectivity issues. An increase in the length of stay also means tourists going on longer treks—which also lowers cost if you are travelling in groups or without a guide.

A backpacker can survive on an average of $30 a day. If you are part of a large group and staying for any length of time, tour operators drive down the margins further.

The average spending could go up significantly if the revenues generated by international airlines were in fact remitted to Nepal. Currently, tourism revenues from only Nepali airlines are considered, whereas nearly two-thirds of the tourists coming to Nepal are serviced by international airlines. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that would make a difference of at least $20 on daily spending.

Another issue is complexities involving remitting the earnings through international payment gateways. It is not clear how much of the payment made through international booking sites is accounted for in these calculations.

Additional factors

But experts include another contributing factor for driving down spending figures this year: payments made either in China or through payment systems such as WeChat and Alipay—where the money never enters the country. As the number of Chinese tourists soars, along with Chinese-run tourism businesses in Nepal, transactions often take place through China-based payment systems that have no linkages to local banking networks. (On May 21, The Himalayan Times reported about how Nepal Rastra Bank had banned the use of these Chinese digital wallets in Nepal, yet the same story acknowledges how difficult it will be to enforce the ban.)

Some even point to a Hundi connection to travel related transactions from countries such as South Korea and Japan. According to this theory, as the government tightens the noose on Hundi, Nepali entrepreneurs are increasingly parking in Japan and South Korea a significant portion of the payments made by Nepal-bound tourists. While some of these may be taking place to bypass the stringent foreign exchange regime to make genuine business-related payments, that does not entirely explain the significant dip in the average spending.

Some officials also think that the significant increase in the number of Sri Lankan and Thai visitors to Lumbini—who arrive for a day trip and tend to spend very little, except for visa fees—skew the data.

These anomalies in spending are not a fair indicator of tourism’s contribution to Nepal’s economy; travel-related jobs continue to soar, with an average of one job created by every two tourists. But there is clearly more to these variances between tourist numbers and money, which needs to be investigated and addressed to maximize the benefits of a booming tourism sector.