Submit your Article

Much has been said about Comrade Prachanda’s “anti-imperialism” state­ment on Venezuela and Nepal’s reluctance to join the US-led Indo-Pacific Strategy and their collective impact on Nepal’s relations with the US, and India and China. In light of global and regional events, the three powers won’t let us off the hook easily. No matter what our wishy-washy leaders and intellectuals believe, there is no way to sweet talk our­selves out of the new Cold War. India and China have invested heavily here and now we are on the US strategic radar again after almost 60 years. Therefore, the chance of Nepal having to deal with one of the following three scenarios is very likely. Scenario A: India and China, despite their geopolitical rival­ry, will be on the same page on Nepal, i.e., keep the US out of it. Each of our neighbors believes that given its influence in Nepal, it will be able to use the country as a bargaining chip in its dealings with the other. Neither would want Nepal to have any US back­ing as it will lead to a confident Nepal, which makes it harder for them to view it as their own exten­sion/satellite.

Scenario B: The US will make “further inroads” here with India’s help. Since India finds itself sur­rounded by China in South Asia, it could very well be open to the US’s idea of roping Nepal into its strategy. As India and the US are “allies”—maybe difficult ones, but allies nonetheless—India probably won’t see the US as infringing on its interests in Nepal, but rather acting on its best interest by keep­ing China out. The two will think their partnership in Nepal helps curb Chinese activities, interests and influence in Nepal.

It will signify a major diplomatic victory for India because China then won’t be able to play the Nepal card in its dealings with India. And the US can prove to the Chinese that it still has influence worldwide including in China’s “strategic backyard.” Further, if the Indo-US partnership is suc­cessful in Nepal, the model can then be applied to other South Asian countries that too face a difficult choice between India and China.

Scenario C: The US will go solo in Nepal. From the US strategic perspective it makes a lot of sense too. It knows the country well, enjoys immense soft power, and the American intelligence has already used our terrain against China 60 years ago. Now imagine being the most influential play­er between the two major Asian powers and with all the latest in surveillance and monitoring technology! Given our location, we could be an excellent listening post for the US to gather intel on missiles and other strategic pro­grams of both India and China— and to mobilize its field agents— just as China’s Xinjiang was used in the 80s to gather intel on the soviet missiles program.

The US can then play the Nepal card to coax India into going with it on many global issues. If things blow out of proportion in the South China Sea or the Indian Ocean between China and the US, it can also thwart any Chinese strategic plans against India in or through Nepal—in case India sides with the US against China. Alternately, a strong US presence in Nepal will restrain India and China and make them seek peace­ful ways to resolve their “issues,” thereby sparing it a significant military adventure or cost as India’s ally.

The only option left for us is to decide who we choose as our ally and set terms favorable to us before any of the three decides for us. Therefore we need to ask each power what’s in it for us if we side with them. Whoever provides us more, we selfishly and shameless­ly side with it, just as many third world countries have done for their development—and survival and security. Without a firm com­mitment to one of the powers we will only be getting paltry sums that neither significantly aid our development at best and are det­rimental to our survival at worst.

Just as my good friend Bhaskar Koirala, the director of Nepal Insti­tute of International and Strategic Studies, recently said, “The US MCC grant of 500 million dollars although previously part of the Asia pivot is now being channeled through the Indo-Pacific strate­gy.” We need to acknowledge it as such and accept that the money we receive from India and China is also part of a named or unnamed strategy. Then decide on where the big money—and less micro­management— is and be part of it.

If we want stability, peace and development, we need to be cold, calculating and objective—and that can only be done when we shed the useless peaceful and neutral cloak. It’s time to imagine the worst and ask very difficult— and impolite—questions.

Our five-part, five-week APEX Series ‘Women in politics’ has made it clear that although Nepal has come a long way on inclu­sion of women in state institutions since the 2006 change, a lot remains to be done. Proportionally, Nepal has more women in the national legislature than any other country in Asia. Yet that is not saying much in itself. Moreover, the political parties didn’t do it voluntarily. The Election Commission had to force them to ensure at least 33 percent women representation in the legislature.

Constitutionally, all four of our national parties—the Nepal Commu­nist Party, the Nepali Congress, the Federal Socialist Forum Nepal and the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal—are illegitimate in that they have failed to ensure the constitutionally-man­dated minimum 33 percent repre­sentation of women in party struc­tures. For instance, in the 441-mem­ber central committee of the ruling NCP, there are only 75 women (17 percent), and in the 84-member cen­tral working committee of the NC, there are 17 women (20.24 percent).

The picture is bleaker still in the executive. After the promulgation of the interim constitution in 2007, 10 cabinets have been formed and none had anywhere close to 33 per­cent representation of women.

Chanda Chaudhary, an RJPN law­maker, points at more disparities. “Political parties have given 33 percent of parliamentary seats to women because of pressure from the Election Commission, which rejected the lists they forwarded. But in appointments to ambassa­dorial positions and constitutional bodies, the EC cannot impose its decision, so the parties are reluctant to provide due space to women.” It shows.

Political parties have confined women to secondary roles, such as deputies in local bodies, dep­uty speakers and state ministers. Top leaders seem to be under the impression that women cannot take up leadership or win elections. Even if our constitution has many progressive provisions, it does not mean much if they are being openly flouted to give continuity to the patriarchal status quo.

Not even a third of the sky

APEX Series

WOMEN IN POLITICS

1 In political parties

2 In the legislature

3 In the executive

4 In key appointments

5 Overall picture

Women’s representation in politics is gradually increasing, but there has not been a quantum leap forward in line with the huge political chang­es Nepal witnessed in the last one decade or so. Over the past four weeks, as a part of APEX Series, we analyzed women’s representation in our political parties, in the legislature, in the executive and in key polit­ical appointments. A closer look at our series of articles shows that the provision of 33 percent wom­en’s representation is implemented only in those areas where legal and constitutional tools compel political parties to do so.

Otherwise, top political leaders are not ready to give due space to women in their own parties or in other state organs. This shows our parties are not committed to the principle of inclusion and only legal and constitutional mechanisms are driving them to accept some inclu­sion. Even the incumbent govern­ment, which is the first full-fledged government formed after the consti­tution’s adoption in 2015 and which has a two-thirds majority in the fed­eral parliament, is not committed to the policy of inclusion in its letter and spirit.

After the last polls in 2017, the Election Commission (EC) was reluctant to publish the final results until the parties ensured 33 percent women’s representation through their Proportional Representation (PR) list. Failure to do so, the EC warned, would delay the publica­tion of results. So the parties sent lists to the EC that had 33 percent representation of women. But in areas where the EC cannot impose its decisions, women’s representa­tion is dismally low.

There is also a lack of a mech­anism to monitor whether the government and political par­ties comply with the provision of ensuring adequate women’s repre­sentation in all state mechanisms. For instance, the Public Hearing Committee (PHC) of the House of Representatives (HoR) can compel the government to ensure that 33 percent of constitutional appoint­ments go to women. The parlia­mentary committees are regarded as mini parliaments and they can reject the government’s list of rec­ommendations that does not have 33 percent women. For example, the PHC cannot initiate a hearing if 33 percent women’s representation hasn’t been achieved.

Late to the party

Very few political appointees are women. Key areas such as constitu­tional bodies, ambassadorial posi­tions and other public enterprises don’t have 33 percent women. There is a tendency of appointing a nomi­nal number of women just to give an impression that the appointments have been inclusive. There is no offi­cial record of political appointments of women, but observers say the low number of female appointees is an old problem. The government makes dozens of political appoint­ments (besides those to the federal and provincial parliaments and to the cabinet), but very few appoin­tees are women.

This clearly shows the political parties’ disinclination to ensure the constitutionally-required represen­tation of women in state organs. The situation has remained unchanged even after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, the holding of three tiers of elections in 2017, and the formation of a government with a two-third majority last year. Now, there is a tendency of appointing a token number of women just to show commitment to the principle of inclusion.

No political party has allocated 33 percent of positions to women in their structures, whether at the center or at the local level

No political party has allocated 33 percent of positions to women in their structures, whether at the center or at the local level. Nepal has four national parties that got over three percent of the total votes cast in the last general elections. And all four—the Nepal Communist Party, the Nepali Congress, the Federal Socialist Forum Nepal and the Ras­triya Janata Party Nepal—are illegit­imate in that they haven’t ensured the constitutionally-mandated min­imum representation of women.

Women’s representation in these parties is well below the 33 percent threshold required by electoral laws. This is also against the spirit of the new constitution. NCP co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal recently admit­ted that his party was illegal for the same reason. No other top leader from the four big parties has been so forthcoming. But these parties are all the same: illegitimate. In the 441-member central committee of the ruling NCP, there are only 75 women (17 percent).

Likewise, in the 84-member cen­tral working committee of the NC, there are 17 women (20.24 percent). Madhes-based parties, which have strongly raised the issue of inclu­sion, have also failed to ensure enough female participation in their party structures. The 815-member central committee of the RJPN has only 129 women (15.8 percent) and the 268-member central committee of the FSFN, a coalition partner of the incumbent government, has only 28 women (10.44 percent).

Male cabinets

Women’s representation in the state’s executive bodies is also disappointing. Despite the constitutional provision of 33 per­cent women’s representation intro­duced after 2007, there has not been much improvement in female repre­sentation in the cabinet. An exam­ination of all the cabinets formed after 2007 shows that women’s rep­resentation in them remains frus­tratingly low. After the promulgation of the interim constitution in 2007, 10 cabinets have been formed but none has 33 percent representation of women.

Even after the promulgation of the constitution in 2015, the number of women in the cabinet has not increased significantly. Women’s representation in key decision-mak­ing bodies remains disappointing. Women have generally been rel­egated to the posts of deputies in local bodies and state ministers in provincial governments.

Chitra Lekha Yadav, a former min­ister and NC leader, says that the constitutional requirement of 33 percent women’s representation should be fulfilled in all state organs, including in the cabinet. “Political parties have ensured 33 percent women’s representation in the par­liament due to constitutional and legal obligations, but they haven’t done so in the cabinet. Top leaders should seriously think about wom­en’s representation in the cabinet as well.”

She adds that women should be appointed to top positions and not just given deputy roles. “Top leaders should think about establishing a system as provided in the constitu­tion. Women have been ensured 33 percent of seats in the parliament, but they are still facing various types of discrimination. Leaders should walk the talk about a prosperous Nepal and happy Nepalis by adopt­ing an inclusive policy.”

The situation is more encouraging when it comes to women’s represen­tation in legislative bodies, where the EC’s mandatory provisions have compelled the parties to ensure 33 percent women’s representation. As a result, Nepal outranks other Asian countries when it comes to female representation in the parliament. A close study of parliaments formed after Nepal’s first parliamentary elections in 1959 clearly shows that women’s representation is increas­ing, thanks to some strict constitu­tional and legal provisions. There has been improvement on this front despite the political leadership’s reluctance to provide due space to female lawmakers.

Not enough pressure

“Political parties have given 33 percent of parliamentary seats to women because of pressure from the EC, which rejected the lists for­warded by the parties that did not meet the constitutional require­ment. But in appointments to ambassadorial positions and con­stitutional bodies, the EC cannot impose its decision, so the parties are reluctant to provide due space to women,” says Chanda Chaudhary, an RJPN lawmaker. “Women’s repre­sentation in various party structures is depressing. Top leaders are not serious about addressing this prob­lem,” she adds.

APEX investigation also shows that women leaders and members of the civil society haven’t exerted enough pressure on the government and political parties to ensure 33 percent female representation in political appointments. The current scenario is unlikely to change unless women leaders from across the political spectrum come together to build pressure. Our reporting also shows that women with connections to top party leaders are being appointed to important posts, whereas women without such connections, but who are otherwise qualified, are denied such opportunities.

Political parties have generally confined women to secondary roles, such as deputies in local bodies, deputy speakers and state minis­ters. Top leaders seem to be under the impression that women cannot take up leadership roles or win elec­tions. And until they are convinced otherwise—or are sufficiently pres­sured to adopt inclusive policies—the situation is unlikely to change any time soon.

 Show of hands as to who reading this stands up to pee? Now lower your hand if you are a guy. Not seeing a lot of hands left! Recently there was an article in this newspa­per about a ‘period subscription box’ which, among other things, includes a Pee Buddy. Yes, I know that usually women do go to the bathroom in pairs, but it’s not that kind of buddy! This one is made of cardboard. None the wiser? Well the idea is to place the funnel shaped device under the urine stream, directing it to the toilet (or bushes). Yes, I have heard of similar things, and I am sure there is something like this for female soldiers. But the article goes on to say this is all about hygiene. No more worrying about dirty toilets, just unzip and… Unzip? So not really the best idea if you are wearing a skirt/ sari/ lungi (unless behind a closed door)? The article also men­tions throwing it in the dustbin after use. Dustbin? In the bathroom that was too dirty to use in the conven­tional manner? According to the article you pull your knickers aside to use the funnel. Easier said than done if attached to your knickers is a sani­tary napkin. Sounds like it could get a little… err, not so hygienic.

 Are we not building more barriers between the Kathmandu ‘elite’ and rural woman who can only dream of monthly chocolate and soft toys?

Which leads us back to the period subscription box. This is seemingly for “college students and profession­als who don’t have time to pamper themselves during their periods”. Contained within these boxes are not only sanitary napkins, but surprise gifts (the picture is a teddy bear), menstrual hygiene items (I’m see­ing hand sanitizer in the picture), snacks and chocolate. These boxes are then ordered for home delivery. Obviously these professional women are incapable of going out to buy sanitary napkins, or their own choc­olate, and enjoy monthly treats of soft toys. There was also something called “instant period stain remover”. I wonder what that could be? So far no menstrual (diva) cup or tampons (which would be easier to use with the Pee Buddy surely) come with the box.

On the topic of the diva cup, I am sure these are extremely useful. In countries with water, hot water (boil­ing is recommended before storing for next month), and with toilets hygienic enough that we can actually sit on them! And, countries where they aren’t obsessed with virginity. Is one still a virgin if one uses a diva cup? Well, yes of course, but many cultures may disagree. Then there is the whole issue of insertion. How many Nepali women reading this (be honest) actu­ally know what their body feels and looks like? And how many women in rural areas (where these things are currently being pushed by the Kathmandu feminist crowd) have the privacy necessary to practise with the cup; the water to clean it, a pot culturally acceptable to boil it in, and a safe place to store it?

Plus a husband or father who won’t faint or lash out? And, I’m sorry, but being a woman who has lived in places without proper toi­lets, I cannot see how the hygiene part works (where to throw the blood, rinse the cup, etc). Plus speak­ing from experience, it’s bloody (sic!) difficult to insert something made of silicone. (Lubricant supplied?)

Leaving hygiene and virginity aside, are we not building more barriers between the Kathmandu ‘elite’ (home delivery of the period subscription box at Rs 650, Rs 1,199 and Rs 2,500) and rural woman who can only dream of monthly chocolate and soft toys? But kudos for trying. Now work on mak­ing something accessible for all. But as for those taking diva cups to rural areas—pushing your agenda isn’t the way to promote inclusive women’s rights. #equi­tablerights #allwomenmatter #itsaper­sonalchoice

Soon after Nancy Powell arrived in Kathmandu in the first week of August 2007 as the new US ambassador to Nepal, she reportedly had an awkward run-in with a Maoist leader. This was only months after the Com­prehensive Peace Agreement was signed in November 2006. The US State Department had still not removed CPN-Maoists from its ‘terror list’ the party was first enlisted in November 2002—fol­lowing the murders of two US Embassy guards. In her first weeks in Kathman­du, Powell was invited to a gath­ering in another western diplo­mat’s house. When she arrived, she walked past several guests shaking their hands. One of them happened to be Barshaman Pun, the current Minister of Energy and a former Maoist commander. As Powell was shaking hands with Pun, an American diplomat whis­pered to her that Pun was a Maoist leader. She reportedly withdrew her hand in shock and confusion. This story was the talk of the town back then.

The two sides have had a com­plicated relationship. While after 2001 the then Bush administra­tion divided the world into a binary system of ‘with us or against us’ around the ‘war on terror’, not everything fitted so neatly into this construct. The Maoists for their part railed hard against the Americans—calling them imperialists. But privately they sought a relation­ship. The leaked American diplo­matic cables by Wikileaks in 2011 show the range of the Maoists’ rapprochement efforts.

Baburam Bhattarai sent a series of letters to the US Embassy in Kathmandu in 2003. The embassy regarded Bhattarai as the party’s ‘most authoritative wordsmith’ and forwarded his missives to the State Department.

This was also the same period when the US complained about the Maoist attempts to isolate them diplomatically in Kathman­du, and accused other Western diplomats of playing into the Maoist strategy.

“The Maoists obviously are try­ing to apply this [divide and rule] tried-and-true method to split the international community’s potential opposition to their movement. Some of our col­leagues in Kathmandu, unfortu­nately, seem all too willing to be taken in,” Michael E Malinows­ki, the then US Ambassador wrote in a cable in 2003. “In practical terms, this has translat­ed into the Maoists’ singling out US-sponsored aid programs for ‘non-cooperation’.”

The arrival of Nancy Powell also signaled a departure from the policy pursued by her two con­troversial predecessors. But it was not until early 2008—following the results of the first Constituent Assembly elections, after which the Maoists emerged as the single largest party—that the US would publicly acknowledge meeting Maoist leaders. But it would take the US another four years before it would officially remove the party from the terror list.

The US-Maoist relationship has come a long way since. Prachan­da has travelled to the US several times. But have the relations been reset to early 2002 conditions under the new administration?

Spooked by Wangzhou?

The relation between the two sides has taken an unprecedented turn with the spat over Venezuela. There are several theories as to why Prachanda issued the state­ment. Was it aimed at his party’s co-chair and the prime minister; was it as a result of Venezuelan lobbying; or was it because tran­sitional justice issues spooked him? Many point to the recent statement by the United Nations and western diplomats as a trigger for the statement on Venezuela.

All these factors could have played a role. Dahal and the Mao­ist half of the ruling NCP are con­cerned by the sudden ‘aggres­sive’ US foreign policy posture in the past several months, in what seems like a pattern against communist governments—and one that has striking resemblance in terms of intensity to ‘Bush’s war on terror’: the escalation of trade war with China, the arrest of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Meng Wangzhou, and the American hardline on Venezuela.

The Maoist leadership rightly feels that the invisible sword of transitional justice continues to hang over their head and that their enemies are out there to get them. They fear they may be arrested when they least expect it—similar to the fate of Huawei’s CFO Wangzhou. Is the US also try­ing to get the Maoists for the mur­der of the two embassy guards?

By publicly issuing a state­ment and railing against the US, Prachanda may be hoping to cre­ate a narrative that the former Maoists are martyrs not perpe­trators—if they are arrested on international soil.