Submit your Article

In the past one month the Nepali state has hosted two religious events. One, the Kathmandu summit of a South Korean Christian organization; and two, the com­memorative marriage ceremony of Lord Ram and Goddess Sita in Janakpur, held under the aegis of the Province 2 government, and with the participation of Yogi Adi­tyanath. These events had ‘religious’ significance alright, but they were also harbingers of ‘religious politics’. Constitutionally, the Nepali state should not be linked to any particu­lar religion. Thus the government’s active involvement in religious activ­ities is rather sad. First, let us discuss the summit organized by Moon family’s Univer­sal Peace Federation. The goal of this organization is to bring under its influence the political leaders of various countries who are either marginalized or have time to spare. By catering to their needs, it seeks to maintain a strong influence over the political class so that it gets to freely proselytize. In a farcical devel­opment, during the summit, one of the two senior leaders of the rul­ing party acted in the capacity of the organization’s guardian while another went to receive a religious award from its founders.

If we refuse to learn from our mistake, the problem that has been dogging our southern neighbor for past 70 years may enter Nepal

This event also raised some diplo­matic questions. What message was Nepal sending to the outside world by inviting the likes of Aung San Suu Kyi (universally criticized for her inaction on Rohingya refugees) and Hun Sen (an elected autocrat)? What message was it giving to China by playing host to Pacific island states that recognize Taiwan? And what message was being convened by Nepal government that is seemingly in favor of religion-change to the Indian leadership wedded to Hin­dutwa?

Even from a religious standpoint, there is a room to question the mes­saging to the followers of diverse faiths in Nepal by being seen as sup­porting a particular religion? Inter­estingly, a big chunk of the Christian community in Nepal is miffed with the government for its support of a ‘Christian cult’.

Compared to its neighbors, Nepal has traditionally been liberal and tol­erant. Even though over 80 percent of its people are Hindu the country easily accepted a secular turn. Prin­cipally, this decision of the Constit­uent Assembly to separate state and religion was right. In this light, it is lethal for the state to be involved in self-contradictory religious activi­ties. The government’s proximity to an organization involved in religious conversions has created the ground for another kind of extremism.

Coincidentally, at this time, Yogi Adityanath was in Mithila to take part in a commemorative marriage ceremony between Ram and Sita. As well as the Chief Minister of an Indian state, he is also the head priest of Gorakhnath Maath, a Hindu temple in Gorakhpur. Above all, he wants to be known as Gorak­shak-pithadishwar, mainly because his politics is religion-based. Aditya­nath is considered not just a Hindu hardliner in the BJP, he is thought of as an out-and-out radical. To understand how radical his thoughts are you only need visit his website and evaluate his attitude towards minorities in his own state.

Earlier, the Janaki Temple used to be the main organizer of the mar­riage ceremony. This year, both Province 2 government as well as the federal government are involved. In preceding years, no political figure had headed the ‘marriage proces­sion’; it was celebrated as a purely cultural event. The arrival of Adi­tyanath this year thus gives both political and religious messages.

Adityanath is no stranger to Nepal. The Gorakhnath Maath he heads and the Shah dynasty of Nepal have old ties. Adityanath has even penned a book called Hindu Rastra Nepal: Atit aur Bartaman (‘Hindu state Nepal: Past and Present’), in which he lauds erstwhile Shah monarchs for their promotion of Hindutwa, and argues that Nepal should go back to being a Hindu state. Adityanath used to take part in programs in Kathmandu organized with the same intent. Nowadays, for­mer king Gyanendra himself goes to see Adityanath.

That Hindutwa activists are trying to turn back the political clock in Nepal is no longer a secret. The BJP has its own interests. Its leaders believe that if Nepal can be con­verted to a Hindu state again, the BJP will be politically validated and that it will send a positive message to the Indian electorate.

When the Nepali constitution was being drafted in 2015, there had been a kind of coercion to impose this BJP belief on Nepal. At that time two for­mer prime ministers of Nepal—Sher Bahadur Deuba and Pushpa Kamal Dahal—had even given New Delhi their ‘word’ that Nepal’s Hindu character would be restored. It was partly because Nepal reneged on this ‘promise’ that India imposed the crippling blockade, as former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai has recently revealed.

India wanted to use the Madhesi Uprising to justify the blockade and Madhesi leaders became its instru­ments. But when New Delhi decided to lift the blockade, it used its police­man to chase away the Madhesi protestors blocking the Indo-Nepal border in Birjung. This reality must never be forgotten. Because in pol­itics such experiments tend to be repeated.

Pastors or priests, Nepalis like to welcome guests, not extremists. If the government is seen as sup­porting these religious extremes, it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. That said, it does not seem to be the intent of either the provincial or the federal government to engage in religious politics by inviting Moon’s religious organization or by welcoming the Yogi. Current controversies may be the result of lack of knowledge or situation-specific reasons. If our state actors learn to stay true to the spirit of the constitution—that the state should be neutral on religious matters—these religious controver­sies will die down.

But if we refuse to learn from our mistake, the problem that has been dogging our southern neighbor for past 70 years may enter Nepal as well. If that happens, as former President Ram Baran Yadav cautioned in a recent public event, “We could invite a war in the name of religion”.

Prime Minister KP Oli finds him­self surrounded by one contro­versy after another. His active involvement in the recent Asia Pacific Summit held in Kathmandu, which was organized by the contro­versial South Korea-based Universal Peace Federation, will be a lasting blot on his political career. I don’t think PM Oli intentionally invited all these controversies. I believe the mistakes he and his govern­ment have made are the result of either ignorance or lack of interest in understanding our social, cultural and historical realities. Nepal is a place steeped in social, cultural and historical values. With­out understanding and respecting those values, no government cannot function well. KP Oli is the most powerful prime minister Nepal has had in the past three decades. But he is not powerful enough to under­mine the cultural and historical her­itage of Nepal. Let us thus hope he has learned something from the Asia Pacific Summit faux pas.

It is because of the failure of political class to understand and protect our rich past that this country has lost track

Nepal is a predominantly Hin­du-Buddhist country. But Nepal is liberal and tolerant, too. Its over 3,000 years of multicultural history suggests the same. This liberal char­acter has also made our social-cul­tural history one of the oldest liv­ing civilizations in the world. From this socio-cultural perspective, we are the first-world. It is unfor­tunate that rather than working to build our national image and boost the morale of our generation by capitalizing on our social-cultural treasures, PM Oli has even failed to touch on those issues.

Nepal is one of very few coun­tries where citizens are not taught about their own culture, history, languages and religions. In western countries, it’s compulsory to have basic knowledge about your cultural and historical past. Even China has started to prioritize history as a part of its national education.

There is so much to learn from our past. For instance, our ances­tors had developed languages more than 3,000 years ago. They had already developed brick making technology in the third century. In the fifth century, they had started building temples like Kasthamandap and Changu Narayan, which have survived for more than 1,500 years. In the sixth and seventh centuries, Licchavi kings used to mint coins not only for Nepal but for other South Asian neighbors as well. Though this coun­try was ruled by different dynas­ties at different times, they were all keen on protecting and preserving Nepal’s diverse social-cultural heri­tage. We have been lucky to inherit that heritage.

Here, if a common citizen wants to understand Nepal’s past, the per­son does not even have access to the country’s comprehensive history in Nepali, and one which covers the country’s social-cultural journey of at least 3,000 years, the time for which there is some kind of a record. It does not mean nothing has been written on it. Late Dilli Raman Reg­mi’s series on Nepal’s history can be taken as major contribution. But most of what has been written is in English, and that too about specific periods, and not about Nepal’s his­tory as a whole.

If he puts his mind to it, docu­menting the socio-cultural history of Nepal as part of a comprehensive history writing project could be one of the big achievements of Oli gov­ernment, for which people will long remember him. It could be a land­mark contribution that connects this and subsequent generations to our rich history. After all, it’s a con­stitutional duty of this government to preserve social-cultural history of Nepal.

To repeat, from social-cultural perspective, we are the first-world. It is because of the failure of politi­cal class to understand and protect our past that this country has lost track. PM Oli has high ambition for economic prosperity. He talks about railways, roads, electricity, jobs and overall development. All these are important but perhaps he does not realize that the foundation of this development has to be our social and cultural heritage.

 In what was a case of blatant misuse of taxpayer money, the government recently splurged on an international summit orga­nized by a controversial INGO. The direct engagement of Prime Minister KP Oli in the Asia Pacific Summit 2018, organized by the Universal Peace Federation (UPF), has attract­ed widespread criticism, includ­ing from ruling party leaders. The UPF has in the past been accused of being involved in evangelical activi­ties in Nepal. While he has been rather tardy in his regular work, PM Oli shifted to Soaltee Crowne Plaza for four full days so that he could directly supervise the summit. Then, with­out the approval of the cabinet, PM Oli accepted from the UPF a $ 100,000 cash prize for his ‘leader­ship role in democracy and good governance’. According to the con­stitution, VIPs and VVIPs are pro­hibited from receiving such rewards without the consent of the cabinet. “The award PM Oli has received is no more than a gift for his backing of the summit,” says former Chief Secretary Bimal Koirala.

There are no strict rules on the conduct of such programs if they don’t impinge on national interest. But the involvement of the whole state apparatus to arrange for a program being organized by a controversial INGO is problem­atic. No less than Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense Ishwor Pokharel personally received the dignitaries when they came to Kathmandu for the conference, and he also saw them off when they were leaving via Tribhuvan Inter­national Airport. This was not just undiplomatic but also a troubling indicator of the weakness of the Nepali state.

While he has been tardy in his regular work, PM Oli shifted to Soaltee Crowne Plaza for four full days to supervise the summit

Former Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya is of the view that as the Foreign Ministry invariably plays a big role in the organization of such summits, senior ministry officials should have undertaken rigorous research on the background of the organizers before approving such conferences on Nepali soil.

The direct involvement of the prime minister’s advisors in the management of the summit is also troubling. Instead of advising the prime minister against such summit they instead seem to have heartily supported the endeavor. According to Ek Nath Dhakal, the UPF Nepal chief, the prime minister’s foreign policy advisor, Rajan Bhattarai, had himself gone to Myanmar to invite Aung San Suu Kyi.

Spokesperson of Nepal Commu­nist Party (NCP) Narayan Kaji Shres­tha has expressed serious concern over the excessive engagement of the government as well as of senior party leaders like Madhav Kumar Nepal in the controversial summit. He said he had time and again sug­gested that such a program hosted by a controversial INGO should not be allowed, to no avail. However, “I personally did not take any part in the summit,” he said.

Common people were irate that the government was misusing state resources, violating diplomatic norms and adding to their difficulty by imposing an odd-even rule for the vehicles during the summit.

Another influential NCP lead­er Bhim Rawal says he is worried that the government had actually approved some money for the sum­mit and urges the government to make proper disclosures. Ruling party standing committee mem­ber Ghanashyam Bhusal agrees. “How can the government support an endeavor that the organizers themselves have failed to justify?” he questions.

Instead of burnishing the coun­try’s image, as the prime minister would like the country to believe, the Asia Pacific summit has further deteriorated the international stand­ing of Nepal. Hun Sen, Prime Minis­ter of Cambodia, is himself is a con­troversial ruler, who came to power from elections whose legitimacy has been questioned by the internation­al community. Suu Kyi, Foreign Min­ister of Myanmar, another attend­ee, is also a controversial leader because of her indifference to the plight of the Rohingya refugees. The remaining dignitaries were also not free from controversy.

Inviting such tainted figures to a questionable summit could further isolate Nepal from her neighbors and deter her real international friends from helping her. If Nepal’s voice is not heard in the internation­al arena tomorrow, the Oli govern­ment will have to shoulder the bulk of the blame.

In the past decade, one thing we have repeatedly heard is prime ministers and ministers issuing instructions to their line ministries and departments to fix this and solve that. Many of these individuals have been prime ministers and ministers multiple times, yet every time they issue the same-old instructions. Why do elected executives seem unable to do anything about a clear case of insubordination, incompetence and neglect of duties? Why do they fail to get things done, the things that really matter to the public, but show great urgency in completing things that seem to benefit few individuals?

For instance the efforts to expand and relocate presidential and vice presidential mansions respectively, a recent push, have picked up steam in comparison to other public works, which have been in the pipeline for long. Have we built a public system that enables or incentivizes pri­vate gain at public expense? Does shutting down the existing police training center without a viable alternative justify as public good? It certainly may provide addition­al comfort for the president, but at what cost?

I am not against offering the highest office bearers of the coun­try befitting perks and privileges, but they also have to be incremen­tal and need to go hand in hand with the improvement of basic services for citizens. It some­how feels that our leaders have become unresponsive to public sentiments.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the prime minister on Dec 2 accept­ed a dubious good governance award carrying a cash prize of US $100,000 against the backdrop of news reports that the very organi­zation that give him the award is lobbying to get the state to cough up Rs 32 million. Even if the prime minister does not keep the cash for himself, it certainly feels like a bribery of sort.

One would credit Oli with few achievements, notable among them his role in helping Nepal gain a degree of strategic autono­my in its foreign policy. But to say that he has done anything remote­ly resembling good governance is a stretch. Absence of self-aware­ness and periodic reflection is a dangerous trait in any leader.

To be fair, PM Oli has made efforts, yet there often seems a wide gap between his words and deeds; he isn’t rigorous enough and gives people around him an easy pass. One cannot fault him too much here, given his poor health. But the least we expect from him is to invest in people who can bring about an improved system, one that promotes public good. When he took office, there was a lot of talk of governance reform and that it would start from the top—meaning the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Govern­ment reform means both mod­ernization and accountability. As I argued in my previous piece in this space, only if leaders them­selves shift gears from how they have been running their political parties can they hope to lead a modern government capable of delivering prosperity.

No doubt, attempts have been made to modernize the govern­ment, yet in the absence of a strategic direction and sustained leadership on these issues, they appear more of an accident than a new emerging norm.

In what seemed like a step in the right direction, Prime Minis­ter KP Sharma Oli recently sum­moned ministers and officials to assess their performance. But the PM should know that per­formance-based contracts for civil servants have been thrown around for quite sometime, and yet they hardly seem to have made a dent on the overall delivery, let alone resulted in quality work, of the public sector. Absence of political will and frequent govern­ment changes had made it difficult to enforce meaningful reform. But that was in the past, or so we were led to believe by the new govern­ment. Yet the business-as-usual continues.

If the current system perpetu­ates, we are sure to have a form of kleptocracy, not a prosper­ous democracy. It is still not too late for PM Oli to leave a legacy behind by putting his characteris­tic dogged determination, which he has shown on other occasions, to work.

By: John Narayan Parajuli