Submit your Article

 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.

 Harvard has asked Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. of the Harvard Law School and first African-American dean at the college, to step down from his position. The esteemed professor had announced his intention to defend Harvey Weinstein in January, which led to months of student protests before Harvard finally made the call to ask him to step down. Weinstein is well-known for not just producing exquisite works of cinema, but also for molesting, sexually harassing, groping and raping over 80 women. The numbers probably exceed a 100, as not all women come forward.

Twitter was immediately up in arms about this decision, with hundreds of people supporting the lawyer for doing his just duty to defend an unpleasant character. Well-known journalist Glenn Greenwald immediately put out a Tweet in his defense, calling out the “racism”. The fact that over 80 women had faced sexual, mental and psychological trauma for years, with serious consequences to their careers, financial security and emotional well-being seems trivial, compared to the injury faced by Professor Sullivan Jr. in doing his legal duty.

While the right for all violators to a fair defense is enshrined in the law, I wonder if the African-American students who stepped out in such vociferous outrage against the dean’s ouster would have done the same for a white Harvard law professor who took the same decision to defend a police officer who’d killed over 80 unarmed black teenagers. Would they be as enthusiastic if the law professor in question decided to defend the man who bombed the black churches? What about defending the leaders of the Rwanda genocide—surely they too are entitled to a legal defense? But would a white professor who did that still expect to hold on to his teaching position? I doubt.

The reason why a white professor would choose not to defend such a character is simple—while it is written in the law that everyone is entitled to a defense, simple human decency and awareness of the atrocities faced by African-Americans at the hands of the police would make this decision to stay away from such a character a no-brainer.

Note there is no “ism” for women who draw the same outrage—a mass rapist is entitled to his legal defense, but the 80 women who came forth and the many who didn’t don’t deserve the same defense. “Sexism” doesn’t even begin to touch the level of misogyny in the way this debate is unfolding. I see not a single Tweet in defense of the women who were Weinstein’s victims.

If only this debate was just about an African-American man’s right to do his unpleasant duty. This is not just the 100 odd women whom Weinstein probably raped in his lifetime, but the thousands of women who have faced sexual violence in conflict and war, the millions who have suffered workplace sexual violence and rape, and the ever increasing cases of male impunity which creates conditions ripe for rape of girls, aged a few months to teenagers, at the hands of men of all ages in developing countries.

If Harvard thinks this debate is only about racism, it is wrong. (Sullivan Jr. is still in the faculty.) This is about the lives of millions of women who have been affected and harmed by sexual violence worldwide. Sexual violence offenders permeate every institution at every level worldwide, pushing women out from public life, affecting their emotional and financial security, and making them even more vulnerable to violence.

What goes on at Harvard filters down everywhere and becomes legal norms in every other country, including Third World countries with poor legal regimes like Nepal. As an academic institution which often comes in the top rankings of the entire world, Harvard cannot afford to think this is about the abstract rule of law.

To allow someone to flaunt his male privilege in this manner would be akin to allowing someone who defended Nazis to be on the law faculty. The mass atrocity committed by the notorious Weinstein ticks all the boxes of a crime against humanity. I was myself surprised to learn this, but you don’t need millions of people affected by a crime for it to be a crime against humanity—about 80 will do if the crime is egregious enough. And you cannot have a man who defends crimes against humanity teaching students at Harvard.

For the many girls and women of Nepal who’ve faced violence in school at the hands of teachers, such as the women who were molested as children by Uttam Tripathi at Lalitpur Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, these scars never heal. For the women in Nepal who were raped and killed during the conflict by soldiers, justice will now only come in the form of how we reshape institutions so they are free of predators, including opportunistic ones who will use their social and institutional standing to defend other predators.

Let’s have a true debate about who the victims are in this discourse. It is not law professor Sullivan Jr. If the concern is about African-American faculty and their marginalization at Harvard, the solution is simple: hire the many brilliant black women lawyers who have fought hard and long all through their lives against sexual violence. There are many of them, all equally powerful and all equally capable of becoming deans of the college.

Any man this tone deaf to the worldwide #MeToo movement doesn’t deserve to be teaching at one of the finest colleges in the world. For Harvard to allow this man to remain on the faculty would be a travesty of justice.