Submit your Article

Chandra Kant (CK) Raut’s sudden entry into main­stream politics was as dra­matic as it gets. It also proved to be a massive public relations vic­tory for a government struggling to control the media narrative on completing its first year in office.

But even on substance, this is a solid undertaking and sends a clear message to all dissent­ing groups that the government is keen on resolving differences through dialogue.

Bringing a secessionist group into the mainstream fold from the cold requires the appearance of some serious concessions from both sides. In that spirit, the deal is intentionally ambiguous so that both parties can sign up despite continuing differences. Negotiators and diplomats rely on ambiguities all the time to advance negotiations. It is rare to have even a joint communiqué between friendly governments without varying interpretations, let alone peace agreements. All agreements between the Maoists and the State in the past, includ­ing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, are replete with ambi­guities. The 22-point agreement between Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum and the government in August 2007 followed a similar pattern.

For the Oli government, this is a first step in a peace process with a secessionist group. This was clear in Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s speech—in which he compared Raut to Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda.’

Those within the ruling party and outside who are jumping the gun on the wording of the agree­ment fail to recognize the impor­tance of this development. They also fail to see the agreement in its entirety. The first point clearly confines the agreement within the current constitutional framework. But that Raut has interpreted the agreement as a concession from the government is also logical.

Anything short of the text of the agreement—whose ambiguity has allowed Raut to claim victo­ry—would have looked like sur­render. This would have created a legitimacy crisis for Raut himself within his fold. The prospect of some other secessionist leader labeling Raut a sell-out and tak­ing on the helm of his erstwhile outfit would then be a real possi­bility. That would have defeated the whole purpose of the agree­ment: to neutralize the threat of a secessionist movement.

Prudent first step

The government needs to be congratulated for recognizing the threat CK Raut’s movement posed to the integrity of the Nepali state in the long run. This agreement is a prudent first step towards neutralizing that risk. For all the hubris the government has shown in other areas, this is one area it has acted wisely. Often, a strong majority in the parliament can delude governments into thinking that that they can bulldoze their way around. History clearly shows that dissent cannot be dealt with force and finding a democratic and constitutional framework to resolve differences is critical to the endurance of a state.

However, the success of this peace process with Raut’s outfit hinges on the sincerity of both the sides.

Raut could very well use this moratorium on state crackdown and freedom to engage in open politics to further burnish his secessionist credentials. As the Maoists did in the past, this could be a strategic retreat. During the reception gathering for Raut in Janakpur airport on March 10, his supporters carried placards calling for Free Madhes. Many in Kathmandu see this as a sign of Raut reneging on the agreement. I think it is too early to conclude anything at this stage. After taking such huge risks, both the govern­ment and Raut need to be given some breathing space.

The government also needs to go easy on its plans, if any, to bring Raut into the government, unless it wants to risk strengthen­ing the hands of hardliners within Raut’s movement. This is assum­ing that he would even accept a government offer. There are speculations that the government intends to nominate Raut to the National Assembly and make him a minister. If true, that would be premature and unwise. It may also encourage other copycats to take a similar route to power.

 In order to revitalize the Nepali Congress and help it regain its position as a lead­ing political force, some vital steps are necessary.

The party doesn’t need many policy reforms. Unwavering faith in democracy, protection of the citizens’ fundamental rights, the rule of law, support for plural­ism, an independent judiciary, a free press, periodic elections, a parliamentary system—these are still the NC’s main policies. The party has embraced the new dynamics of proportional representation. Because ‘demo­cratic socialism’ is highly prone to misinterpretation by commu­nist parties, Congress needs to establish a separate identify for itself as a proponent of a welfare economic system.

The NC has always been led by someone who respects the pub­lic mandate. Between 1950 and 1982, the party was led by BP Koirala. After that, for a decade, it was led collectively by Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhat­tarai and Girija Prasad Koirala. From 1990 on, it was led primar­ily by Girija Prasad Koirala until his demise in 2010.

Girija Prasad Koirala had firm faith in the rank and file, who act as the link between the party and the people. It was because he was continuously in touch with the rank and file that he was able to prevail over other senior leaders. At present, the party leadership lacks vitality. A successful leader has to have, at a minimum, four traits—the ability to listen to others, test their ideas, analyze the ideas in context and express one’s views clearly to the public.

The party leadership has been weakened because of its inabil­ity to establish itself among the general people. These leaders will get yet another chance to correct their mistakes in the next general convention. How the party will make use of this opportunity is a matter of curi­osity and concern. In a polity like ours, some influence of heredity is undeniable. But now that the country is a republic, the salience of heredity is bound to erode.

Even today, Congress is not organizationally weak. The party charter provides a good enough roadmap. But an apathetic lead­ership has rendered the center passive. Various departments haven’t been set up. Responsibil­ities haven’t been properly dele­gated. Because party leaders are mobilizing their supporters and well-wishers mostly from their own homes, the party office is in decline.

Until the party corrects this tendency, it cannot function well. Daily attendance of the party president and central committee members at the party office can help break factional­ism. Not going to the party office and running factions from home breeds a culture of sycophancy. Such a trend must be discour­aged. It not only places factions above the party but, worse, saps the morale of cadres.

Daily attendance of party president and central committee members at party office can help break factionalism

BP himself was a cerebral leader. He had expressed the need to establish think tanks during the time of the 1980 ref­erendum. But the current Con­gress leadership doesn’t realize think tanks are needed, whether the party is in government or in opposition. When necessary, they invite experts and form opinions on an ad hoc basis. Think tanks of a permanent nature are the need of the hour. They help identify and cor­rect shortcomings in the party, inspire leaders through inde­pendent views and formulate short- and long-term strategies.

Since 1990, because of the continual exercise of demo­cratic freedoms, a sizeable mid­dle class has evolved across the length and breadth of the coun­try. Easy access to a passport has allowed half the population to visit foreign countries and become familiar with global trends. Moreover, the IT revo­lution has brought news from around the world to individual households. Now, Nepali citi­zens are, to varying degrees, familiar with national and global happenings. So they expect the government to deliver. And they have penalized the NC for its fail­ure to deliver despite multiple opportunities. The party’s next general convention is looking for a leadership that can deliver on numerous fronts—political, eco­nomic, social and cultural. But that’s only possible if the party can break free from the chains of hierarchy.

Traditional parties, including Congress, haven’t been able to attract the youth. In fact, the NC leadership doesn’t even know what the new genera­tion wants. Congress leaders, including yours truly, are IT illiterate. Without familiarity with Information Technology, it’s impossible to connect with the new generation.

The country is at a crossroads between hope and cynicism. A political party should be able to inspire hope. It’s the leadership that orients a party in a partic­ular direction. The NC should

 be able to profess commitment to good governance, quality healthcare and edu­cation, fiscal discipline, capital formation, greater investment, development and job creation. It should convey that only the NC can protect freedoms.

The state has been restructured for the first time. NC has to take ownership of the constitution and demonstrate a clear determination to implement it honestly

Radheshyam Adhikari is an NC lawmaker in the federal upper house

 In order to revitalize the Nepali Congress and help it regain its position as a lead­ing political force, some vital steps are necessary.

The party doesn’t need many policy reforms. Unwavering faith in democracy, protection of the citizens’ fundamental rights, the rule of law, support for plural­ism, an independent judiciary, a free press, periodic elections, a parliamentary system—these are still the NC’s main policies. The party has embraced the new dynamics of proportional representation. Because ‘demo­cratic socialism’ is highly prone to misinterpretation by commu­nist parties, Congress needs to establish a separate identify for itself as a proponent of a welfare economic system.

The NC has always been led by someone who respects the pub­lic mandate. Between 1950 and 1982, the party was led by BP Koirala. After that, for a decade, it was led collectively by Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhat­tarai and Girija Prasad Koirala. From 1990 on, it was led primar­ily by Girija Prasad Koirala until his demise in 2010.

Girija Prasad Koirala had firm faith in the rank and file, who act as the link between the party and the people. It was because he was continuously in touch with the rank and file that he was able to prevail over other senior leaders. At present, the party leadership lacks vitality. A successful leader has to have, at a minimum, four traits—the ability to listen to others, test their ideas, analyze the ideas in context and express one’s views clearly to the public.

The party leadership has been weakened because of its inabil­ity to establish itself among the general people. These leaders will get yet another chance to correct their mistakes in the next general convention. How the party will make use of this opportunity is a matter of curi­osity and concern. In a polity like ours, some influence of heredity is undeniable. But now that the country is a republic, the salience of heredity is bound to erode.

Even today, Congress is not organizationally weak. The party charter provides a good enough roadmap. But an apathetic lead­ership has rendered the center passive. Various departments haven’t been set up. Responsibil­ities haven’t been properly dele­gated. Because party leaders are mobilizing their supporters and well-wishers mostly from their own homes, the party office is in decline.

Until the party corrects this tendency, it cannot function well. Daily attendance of the party president and central committee members at the party office can help break factional­ism. Not going to the party office and running factions from home breeds a culture of sycophancy. Such a trend must be discour­aged. It not only places factions above the party but, worse, saps the morale of cadres.

Daily attendance of party president and central committee members at party office can help break factionalism

BP himself was a cerebral leader. He had expressed the need to establish think tanks during the time of the 1980 ref­erendum. But the current Con­gress leadership doesn’t realize think tanks are needed, whether the party is in government or in opposition. When necessary, they invite experts and form opinions on an ad hoc basis. Think tanks of a permanent nature are the need of the hour. They help identify and cor­rect shortcomings in the party, inspire leaders through inde­pendent views and formulate short- and long-term strategies.

Since 1990, because of the continual exercise of demo­cratic freedoms, a sizeable mid­dle class has evolved across the length and breadth of the coun­try. Easy access to a passport has allowed half the population to visit foreign countries and become familiar with global trends. Moreover, the IT revo­lution has brought news from around the world to individual households. Now, Nepali citi­zens are, to varying degrees, familiar with national and global happenings. So they expect the government to deliver. And they have penalized the NC for its fail­ure to deliver despite multiple opportunities. The party’s next general convention is looking for a leadership that can deliver on numerous fronts—political, eco­nomic, social and cultural. But that’s only possible if the party can break free from the chains of hierarchy.

Traditional parties, including Congress, haven’t been able to attract the youth. In fact, the NC leadership doesn’t even know what the new genera­tion wants. Congress leaders, including yours truly, are IT illiterate. Without familiarity with Information Technology, it’s impossible to connect with the new generation.

The country is at a crossroads between hope and cynicism. A political party should be able to inspire hope. It’s the leadership that orients a party in a partic­ular direction. The NC should

 be able to profess commitment to good governance, quality healthcare and edu­cation, fiscal discipline, capital formation, greater investment, development and job creation. It should convey that only the NC can protect freedoms.

The state has been restructured for the first time. NC has to take ownership of the constitution and demonstrate a clear determination to implement it honestly

Radheshyam Adhikari is an NC lawmaker in the federal upper house

Nepal is not a small country. There are 167 countries in the world that are smaller than Nepal in size. Nepal is bigger than Austria, Switzerland, South Korea and Israel, to name a few. You don’t normally read of these countries being referred to as small by either foreigners or their natives. Comparably, they are smaller than many big countries but their international standing is no less.

Nepal is small because it perceives itself as such. The small-country-syndrome is engrained in our collective psyche and we are made to feel hopeless and helpless all the time. It’s a little country that is always intim­idated by big powers that sur­round it. It’s a country that never got over its own perceived sense of smallness and always feels it is at the mercy of its big neighbors— and everybody else.

Now this country that perceives itself as small and weak finds itself being courted by its neighbors and the reigning superpower, and it has absolutely no idea how to respond to their overtures. It now finds itself “in the vortex of world conflicts” but doesn’t know how to stand up for its interests—at least in the past, our rulers knew whose side we need­ed to choose to remain and be acknowledged as being an inde­pendent country.

These days we don’t even know what constitutes our national interests and how to go about defending those. The undem­ocratic-by-today’s-standards Rana regime knew that it had to ally itself with the British if we were to remain independent. The Ranas rejected both the German and Japanese overtures and allied Nepal with the power that guaran­teed and respected Nepal’s sover­eignty—of course in exchange for its able-bodied fighting men and continuation and enrichment of the oligarchy.

In the era of colonization and hot wars we managed to main­tain our sovereignty and indepen­dence because our rulers made the best choices in the worst of scenarios. The last ruler who stood tall without any emotion­al baggage was King Mahendra. But we have demonized him so much that any positive men­tion of him or praising of his for­eign policy is ridiculed by the brainwashed liberals as following “Mahendrian nationalism.”

The “sponsored” national nar­rative that views King Mahendra as a villain—favorite of our liberal elites and mainstream press—has made us fear that if we stand up for our interests, one of our neigh­bors is going to get angry, and we being the smallest, weakest and poorest one have no option but to please all, all the time. As a result, diplomacy for us is nothing more than appeasing everyone. But if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one, and only make yourself more miserable.

The ‘small, powerless, weak’ country syndrome has debilitated us and it’s our own doing. Our diplomacy is driven by irratio­nal fears, and the foreigners are taking advantage of not our real weaknesses but our perceived ones. We have failed to ask the most important question: What’s the worst that can happen if we make our real priorities clear and align or not align with one of the three—India, China or the US?

An embargo maybe: Diplomacy then means having good relations with the other so that there are no energy and food shortages. No development aid: If one cuts down or stops development aid, then maintain good relations with the other two so that we keep getting the money, and ask for market access. No tourists: have the other two send us more tour­ists and have more direct flights. We being on some evil countries’ list and international embargo: be in more than friendlier terms with the enemy of your enemy.

The worst of all scenarios is the likelihood of a proxy war and per­petual chaos and political insta­bility instigated by the disgrun­tled power (s). But that can only happen if it finds leaders that are willing to be used. If our leaders are united on national interests then no power can destabilize us. Diplomacy then can be used to develop the country with the help of whoever provides us more and helps keep the disgruntled at bay, thereby averting any proxy war, in exchange of our loyalty.

Therefore, we—insecure little in the middle—first need to imagine what’s the worst that can befall us if we make our choices clear—and whether or not the friend(s) we choose help(s) us feel empowered and grow stronger.

Let’s not continue with the pol­icy of stunting our growth—unless we want to be the circus dwarf who makes the whole world laugh at him with his antics.