Submit your Article

The European Union is once again at the center of controversy in Nepal. The recommendation by its election observers that the Nepali state do away with the reservation for Khas-Aryas in the parliament did not go down well with the government or with any rational Nepali citizen. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was quick to issue a strong statement that clearly told the EU and other missions in Nepal to stop making such silly recommendations and not comment on our internal matters. While some leaders, notably Upen­dra Yadav and organizations that have a dubious record of receiving financial help from the EU or from numerous INGOs funded by it, were supportive of the EU’s recommenda­tion, others rightly viewed it as an unnecessary provocation.

In response, the EU said it stands by its report and it is up to the gov­ernment to work (or not) on its rec­ommendation. It offered to talk with the government on the issue, which the government rightly declined. The KP Oli-led government, despite some recent misadventures in for­eign policy, has yet again proved that it will not back down from call­ing a spade a spade. And unlike in the past, the preaching days seem to be over for the foreigners.

The beginning

According to a retired Nepal Army general who has closely followed the Maoist insurgency, the Maoists used ethnic politics to cripple the nation. He believes that the EU was the brain behind ethnic politics, either for car­rying out a silly political experiment or for facilitating proselytization. “Otherwise how do you explain that Nepal’s is the only communist insur­gency in the world that received financial help from the churches in Europe?” he asks. The Maoists, after entering mainstream politics, made a U-turn on their pledges of ethnic states as they learned the hard way that the majority of Nepalis simply do not care about ethnicity-based feder­alism. It is not only impossi­ble but also impractical in Nepal’s context. But the EU is still fascinat­ed by the idea and has found others, especially the intellectu­als and other regional par­ties with an ethnic agen­da, to do its bidding.

Doesn’t suit EU

Last year when the Catalonians voted for independence from Spain, the EU and all of its mem­ber states either remained quiet or issued statements supporting the Spanish state.

Imagine a scenario where a prov­ince in Nepal opts for indepen­dence. The EU will not even wait for a referendum. It will not use the argument it used to support the Spanish state that there is no provi­sion whatsoever for independence in the Spanish constitution. The irony here is that one reason the Catalonians wanted independence from Spain was to preserve their unique Catalan identity.

In Nepal, the EU has no prob­lem meeting secessionist forces and advocating on their behalf, as if the notions of sovereignty and territorial integrity apply only to wealthy countries, its member states or where it has strategic interests. (Meeting such secessionist forces is in direct violation of the Vienna Convention for diplomatic relations that the Europeans themselves helped develop.)

Further, the EU is the last body authorized to talk about inclusion because it is driven by race and religion—despite the liberal, all-en­compassing façade it maintains to preach poor countries like ours. Otherwise, how would one explain its reluctance to grant membership to Turkey, which for the very pur­pose has made significant amend­ments to its constitution?

And the EU also has no right to preach others about the virtues of democracy and inclusion or suggest a particular political or development model to follow, as most Europe­an countries developed because of colonialism and the exploitation of the weak. The poverty and conflict in much of Africa today is the result of European colonial exploitation. If PN Shah and the Khas-Aryas are to be blamed for Nepal’s current prob­lems, then King Leopold II, Queen Victoria, Cecil Rhodes and the white Europeans must be blamed for the ongoing problems in Congo and Zim­babwe.

Similarly, anti-Semitism was wide­spread up until the 20th century and the Jews who were in Europe for centuries did not feel very welcome in the countries that unabashedly teach us, the poor countries, the val­ue of inclusion. The “moral” Europe fought two wars with China to keep on selling opium there and creat­ed divisions among Indians along religious lines. Moreover, Europe rejected Japan’s demand to include the racial equality clause in the char­ter of the League of Nations in 1919.

Racist within

Even today there are not many African, Arab and Asian descendants who make it to high positions in the bureaucracies or governments of European countries, although they have lived there for centuries. Nor do European countries accept or recognize Asian and African dialects or Arabic as one of their official lan­guages. Many European countries are now seeing a revival of the right­ist anti-immigrant forces. How many French of African descent have been ministers or prime ministers? How many non-white Belgians? And how many Europeans of Arab origin hold important government or bureau­cratic positions in Europe?

Has the EU suggested that its member states give reservations to their ethnic minorities—Arabs, Afri­cans and Asians—or limit the dominant group’s rep­resentation in their parliament or bureaucracy? Maybe it’s about time it did so because the governments and par­liaments there seem biased toward one group. According to a news story published in The Guardian (July 27, 2017), “Jean-Claude Juncker leads a European com­mission cabinet, or college, that is entirely white…The EU’s executive has been accused of being blind to black and minority ethnic commu­nities after they failed to feature in a new “diversity” initiative to make the European commission’s senior posts more representative…Within the European parliament, of the 776 MEPs elected in 2014, fewer than 20 are thought to be from a minority ethnic background, although no official statistics are held.”

Germany’s EU commission­er, Günther Oettinger, is known for his openly homophobic and racist comments. When some­one, for instance, pointed that calling Chinese “slant eyes” may be racist, he replied that his comment should be understood in the “larger context”.

Is the European Union itself diverse? “If you want to see diversity in the European institutions, look at the faces of the cleaners leaving the building [the European Parliament in Brussels] early in the morning and contrast that with the white MEPs [Members of the European Parliament] and officials entering,” Politico quotes Syed Kamall, a Brit­ish Muslim who leads the European Conservatives and Reformists in the European Parliament.

The EU preaches from a bully pulpit in Nepal because our leaders and intellectuals find it advantageous to remain quiet in the face of blatant violations of all diplomatic protocols. Nobody wants to lose their perks or be labeled undemocratic by speaking up to a regional organization that mol­lycoddles them. Such silence only emboldens the EU.

We have talked a lot about the criminal-political nexus; perhaps it is time we talked about the (I)NGOs-intellectuals-politicians nexus and ways to break it. If not, it will not be the last time the EU offers its provocative and dubious recommendations.

Doctor prescribes

Just as Dr Mahathir Mohamad implies in his memoirs, ‘A Doctor in the House’, had Malaysia followed the Euro­peans’ suggestions, it would still be a poor, fragmented and dysfunctional country. Many eth­nic Europeans, he writes, “are for­ever offering unsolicited advice, apparently unashamed that when they left Malaya to the Malays in 1957, it was a poor and underdevel­oped country… still, they seem blind and deaf to why I will not accept their advice. Many of them think we should uphold liberal democra­cy modeled on their own national practices, forgetting that our social, cultural, religious, ethnic and eco­nomic composition is completely different from theirs.”

According to the Doctor, “It is the negatives that they see and imagine, not our positive achievements,” and “behave as if they are superior and generally know better than Asians.”

Perhaps, it’s time for a Nepali Mahathir.

Mass transit systems are a public sector responsibili­ty. But the current govern­ment thinking seems to be limited to opening up space for competi­tion among private players.Surely opening up the monop­olized space for more private players—by effectively stamping out the notorious transport syn­dicates—will bring about some improvement. But it won’t solve the bigger problem of the lack of common standards, unifor­mity and reliability. And leaving only the private sector to operate transport services will not result in a reliable mass transit system—a hallmark of any great city. Ease of mobility—both daytime and nighttime—is an important factor that determines the quality of life in big cities.

Examples from other great cit­ies show that public transport has to be operated under a public private partnership (PPP) model for it to be reliable and sustain­able. This requires a clear legal framework and a designated pub­lic entity for each city or town to regulate the standards, quality of services, frequency and cost.

We can draw lessons from the experiences of Delhi, Colom­bo or Bangkok for reorganizing Kathmandu’s mass transit system. But London—though not exact­ly a similar context—offers the best template for replication. Transport for London (TfL), a local government body respon­sible for public transport in the greater London area, is both a regulator and an operator. It pro­vides transport services through wholly owned subsidiary compa­nies, private sector franchisees and licensees.

For Nepal, the first step in this direction could be the creation of a high-powered mass transit authority for Kathmandu Valley. This can be replicated in other cities in subsequent phases. This body can serve purely as a regula­tor for issuing licenses and defin­ing routes, schedules and pricing. Or it can also double as a service provider operating its own fleet of buses and other modes of trans­port alongside private operators.

The TfL template can be mod­ified to fit our context. Let’s say that the government creates a Kathmandu Valley transport authority empowering it to work both as a regulator and an oper­ator. Current transport entre­preneurs could then be asked to organize themselves into three or four large companies. It would be ideal if the authority sets up a one-door ticketing and fare collec­tion system for all forms of public transport, excluding taxis.

Private sector operators would work through a tender system—where they bid for set routes and frequency for a five-year peri­od—which would include a pro­vision for adjusting inflation so as to ensure profitability for the private actors. This would allow commuters to buy single rides or daily, weekly or monthly pass­es. The ticketing system would basically be an improvement on (and consolidation of) the system currently implemented by Sajha Yatayat for its fleet.

Once the buses and taxis are reorganized, the transport authority can set its sight on other modes of mass transit.

Bus rapid transit

Bus rapid transits (BRT) have proven to be an easy way to improve mass transit in cities that do not have resources or favor­able conditions for metro rails and trams. They are easy to imple­ment and relatively inexpensive. They have exclusive right of way—through dedicated lanes—similar to that of metros and trams. Now they can be operated by a subsid­iary company run by the trans­port authority or by a new public company involving Sajha, which already has significant investment from local governments.

In the first phase, they could be operated along the Ring Road, Saatdobato-Narayan Gopal chowk and Surya Binayak-Ratnapark routes, as these have wide roads for dedicated lanes. This would require categorizing roads into primary, secondary and tertiary routes and phasing out tempos, micros and minibuses from the primary routes.

The Kathmandu Sustainable Urban Transportation Project, funded by the Asian Development Bank and the Global Environment Facility, had tried to work on some of these reforms. But lack of cooperation from transport syndi­cates and absence of political will stymied the initiative.

Improving public transport is possible only if there is a dedi­cated entity empowered with a clear legal and operational frame­work. Piecemeal approaches may lead to some improvements, but without a major overhaul, they will only bring cosmetic changes that won’t incentivize commuters to leave their private vehicles at home. As a 2012 JICA study shows, only 28 percent of the 3.6 million daily rides in the Valley are made using public transport.

Parajuli is a Kathmandu-based journalist with an interest in public policies

Just how ‘organic’ are organics? Over the past few years a number of organic markets have shot up throughout Kathmandu. So what makes these markets different from other markets around town?The very word ‘organic’ makes us think that these markets are selling everything that is wholesome and fresh. But what does organic really mean? Warning: advertorial coming up! With regard to organic farming, only natural materials are used; no chemical fertilizers or pesticides. This prolongs the longevity of the land (heavy chemicals ultimately reduce its production capacity) and maintains ecological balance. In the past this was the normal way to farm (no chemicals available back then) but now agriculture sans chemicals is known as ‘organic’ farming.

As a child, before big supermarket pre-packaging, I regularly found insects in the vegetables on my din­ner plate. Those were the tiny ones that had escaped my mother’s atten­tion in the rinsing process. How often do you come across an insect in your vegetables here in Nepal? Not very often I bet.

While there have always been people encouraging the use of a traditional, natural approach to farming, it’s not until quite recently that we have seen the label ‘organic’ in the Kathmandu Val­ley. But does that mean every product in the market is certified? There are private organizations providing organic certification in Nepal but as far as I am aware, the government does not have its own system of certification yet. So to my mind, those who are enthusiastic about natural farming or wild-harvesting will maintain standards which will reduce defor­estation and encourage respectful and sustainable agriculture farming systems, thereby protecting the local environment. Unfortunately, currently, there is too much at stake for the average farmer to invest time and effort into an organic farming method which is more labor intensive and which will take longer to achieve the same results. And anyway, who in the local markets is interested in paying more for organic products?

Which brings us back to the ‘organic markets’ in Kathmandu. Go along to any of these markets on the weekend, or now during the week also, and you will see that the vast majority of people who are buying are expats. And when you take a look at the prices being charged, you will understand why. Fruit and vegetables are not the only things that are more expensive here. It is a good place to source cheeses, pumpkin and chai seeds, natural body lotions, breads of all different varieties, home-made and restaurant-made food to eat in or take away, honey, etc. That cannot be denied. But shoppers pay dearly for the convenience and ambiance. And is everything ‘organic’ anyway? Without a thorough background check, how would we know?

But while many go there to shop, just as many go to socialize. It’s certainly a meeting ground for expats and middle class Nepalis alike. Some of the markets have value added events selling artwork, and handicrafts made in Nepal, or have live music to attract custom­ers. The original organic markets seem to have spawned other mar­kets which don’t sell food but art, jewelery, handmade bags and other hand-made or community-made goods. Many of the stalls highlight the fact they work with local women or craftspeople, which makes the buyer feel they are giving back by making their purchases there. Don’t get me wrong, yes, on the whole they seem to be fair trade stalls. But again, how would we know?

One of the first—then we didn’t call it organic—markets was at the Sum­mit Hotel on a Sunday morning. In those days it was mainly vegetables they sold—things like lettuce which were not readily available in the local shops—and bakery products. At that time, they even provided free coffee to the shoppers. Ah for the good old days of free coffee and non-‘organic’ prices!

While the leaders and we—the writers, ana­lysts, scholars and elites or what have you—are obsessed with our relations with neigh­bors (which I too am guilty of), and promoting and institution­alizing democracy in the coun­try (which I am not guilty of), the common citizens of Nepal have different priorities altogeth­er. They rightly believe that both of our neighbors will keep on doing what they are doing and we will be doing whatever we are doing until now, so except for the occasional beer or local brew sessions with friends, for­eign policy is not a priority for most of them. (Once the drinking session is over, the obsession with the foreigners and their activities is also over—well, until the next booze fest). Similarly, when it comes to democracy, most of the country is baffled that the same set of leaders the whole country seems to loathe gets miraculous­ly elected all the time. So much for the argument that the Mao­ist insurgency led to heightened political awareness.Rather, the violent insurgency and the political-criminal nex­us, corruption, nepotism and we-can-do-anything attitude of the leaders have further enfee­bled the country. The people and the elites alike are too meek to ask the questions that really matter. In a way, the rift between the gov­ernment and the public has wid­ened even more. People have no interest in what the leaders have to say, because they know it’s just empty talk. While the leaders live in a different world where everything is provided for, the majority of Nepalis live in a world full of wants. And we, the self-pro­claimed intellectuals, are busy connecting the geopolitical and geostrategic dots and are focused on abstract ideas and ideals.

No wonder, people use all sorts of colorful adjectives to describe and address the leaders and view us, the so called elites, as a weird bunch on some shady foreign agency’s payroll. Many spend Rs 12 to buy a cigarette and Rs 20 for a cup of tea, but are unwill­ing to spend Rs 10 to buy a daily newspaper. The circulation of major national dailies proves it. There are not many readers in our “politically aware” country, and rightly so, because all you get is bombarded with news and views that have hardly anything to do with the real issues and problems.

For example, how many edito­rial and op-ed pieces are penned asking the government what it does with the tax money or sug­gesting it to use the tax money on upgrading infrastructure? Where does all that money go because we seem to rely on foreign aid even for ambulances and fire trucks? Again, how many editorials and expert views do you, the readers, get to read on the importance of urgent and concrete action on road and food safety and alarming pollution? Similarly, hardly any­one is suggesting the leaders to act on their election pledges, and to internalize the importance of decriminalizing politics and con­trolling inflation, corruption and misuse of government vehicles.

Contrast these with the num­ber of pieces advising the gov­ernment on what it ought to do with India and China or on the need to institutionalize democ­racy and freedom of expression and human rights. Not that these abstract ideals, which our lead­ers and writers talk ad nauseam about, do not matter, but in our context, effective utilization of tax money, and access to safe roads, food, clean air, healthcare and education are also equally or even more important.

But we seldom write on these issues because they are not sexy enough.

The politicians are in a different tangent and we can only hope that one day we will be blessed with a responsible leadership. But what about us? We too are guilty of being either timid, unconnect­ed or unconcerned with the real issues and problems. We, the mis­guided elites, have knowingly or unknowingly hijacked the real agenda and the shameless politi­cians are having a field day.

Perhaps it’s about time we asked the right questions and made the right noises so that there’s some semblance of morality and accountability in the country—or at least to get people to read what we write.