Submit your Article

Ever since the DC meeting between our foreign minis­ter and the American Sec­retary of State, Kathmandu, as news reports suggest, has had more than its fair share of sym­posiums, conferences and what not on Nepal’s foreign affairs and diplomacy. And we have had our experts suggest the same thing over and over: “It’s a delicate sce­nario and Nepal needs to cau­tiously balance its relations with all major powers.”

It makes everyone happy. The organizers keep on getting fund­ing for more such discussions and what not. The experts don’t need to think at all, and say the same thing again and again. The jour­nalists don’t even need to listen and take notes, and instead focus on lunch and drinks because they know exactly what is coming.

This is why nobody bothers to ask any of the experts what exact­ly is balance in our intent and how Nepal can balance its relations with all.

The answer to this simple ques­tion is: There is no way Nepal can balance its relations with all. It’s impossible. In fact the whole idea of balance is ridiculous. Nepal could pretend to balance if it had a strong economy and defense, but, for a poor and weak coun­try, balancing relations with the superpower and regional powers is like making a 5-year-old run a marathon with a 50-pound load. Unless the kid is a Hercules or Bhimsen or Pangu reincarnate, he will collapse in under a second.

For the record, no country has been able to balance its relations with competing and conflict­ing powers. And those who try become wrecks. Then how come our otherwise well-versed and intelligent experts are hung up on the impossible and quite laugh­able idea?

There are two major reasons. The first being the government does not fund think-tanks. So, the think-tanks, of which there are many, rely on foreign money to run their organizations and host the discussions. And they need to make everyone, most importantly their donors or the funding orga­nizations which have offices or operations in both India and Chi­na, happy by not rocking the boat.

Also, the interest of foreign intelligence agencies in organiz­ing conferences and arranging visits of our experts abroad, or of foreign experts to Nepal, through various research centers and think-tanks cannot be ruled out. It’s the best and safest way to identify experts who can be used and to put words in their mouth. Many intelligence agencies have been employing this tactic as a way to influence the popular nar­rative which directly and indirect­ly influences government deci­sions. As everywhere some smart experts in Nepal know they are being used, and they want to be used, in exchange for material benefits.

We cannot blame the intelli­gence agencies as they are doing what is expected of them. Intelli­gence operations promote your national interests and one of the most gullible targets are the experts, as highlighted in Daniel Golden’s Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America’s Univer­sities. Suffice to say, some agen­cies have their own “national” interests in keeping us the way we are so that they can go on with whatever they have planned for us. If domestic politics is all about deception, then interna­tional relations are an even bigger deception, and journalists and experts come in handy in weaving the deception web.

Hence, the discussions end with “Nepal needs to balance” pre­scription and don’t even touch on how to achieve that balance. Because then you will need to touch on making Nepal stronger than it is today by focusing on defense modernization, strength­ening our intelligence and count­er intelligence capabilities, look­ing beyond the immediate neigh­bors, a proactive foreign policy and sensible economic planning, and many other things, even to achieve pseudo neutrality and balance.

If the government of Nepal is serious about what it needs to do in the complex regional and global scenario and wants some­thing doable and achievable than the “balance” solution, it needs to invest in think-tanks. If it has billions to spend on luxury for the VVIPs, it certainly has some millions to spare on think-tanks and intelligence. All countries have been doing it and we are late in the game already.

The ultimate buyer of knowl­edge is the government and when you find that your government has no interest in buying or valu­ing your knowledge, you have no option but to sell it to whoever wants to buy it or values it. And that has been happening in Nepal for the past 50 years.

Perhaps when our government learns to value the experts by interacting with them and buying their knowledge with money, din­ner and drinks, then they will talk the talk and we will be hearing and reading something refresh­ing. The government may start making sensible decisions too.

Barbara Kellerman, a lecturer in Public Leadership at the Har­vard Kennedy School and a famous author, recently called for a new approach to leadership studies and practices in an industry worth billions of dollars. Kellerman advocates a scientific approach and in a recent webinar for the International Leadership Association, she decries the fact that “leadership is not treated as a profession or even a vocation but merely as an occupation, taught quickly and casually”.

The industry is also expanding in emerging countries like Nepal with more leadership practitioners and an increasing number of training programs. Recently, Rice University in the US partnered with Leadership Academy Nepal to provide an execu­tive leadership training for CEOs and other senior executives.

But it is also important to think of leadership from a different perspec­tive, as a tool to develop the poten­tial of those at the bottom of society.

In Nepal, there is a small minority of students with access to elite schools who come from financially secure backgrounds, speak good English and have dreams to attend top colleges around the world.

Then there is a vast majority of youths attending public or mediocre private colleges. Among them, there are a few who are always on the lookout for opportunities for self-de­velopment. They should be praised for their effort and willpower to keep exploring. Yet most students in this category are not motivated to face challenges. Nor are they driven by a positive ambition.

And then there is another big cat­egory of youths who do not even think about going to college but rather about finding a precarious job in transport or other ill-regulated sectors. If you live in a constant state of vulnerability, for example, if you belong to a historically marginalized group, if you are a poor woman in a patriarchal society or if you live with disabilities, simply getting by every day could be a challenge. While there are exceptions, the vast major­ity of vulnerable youths are stuck, with constant pressure and fading hope for a better future. There are no easy solutions to turn the tide.

The state, with its three tiers of government, has a duty to offer better options to these youths. The private sector can also do its part by rolling out employability skills. Marginalized youths can defy odds through sheer resilience, strength­ened by their daily struggles. But we might need a different, more purpose-driven leadership, one that inspires, supports and builds the confidence of vulnerable youths.

The case of Dan Theengh, a Jawalakhel-based wheelchair basket­ball champion, is an apt example. If provided with the right tools, youths like Dan can thrive and become role models for others.

Finding a purpose in life is not easy; it might take years of hard work. It also requires consistent sup­port and a set of leadership practices that focus on the strengths rather than the weakness of youths. Lead­ership practices need to be more rig­orous and academically grounded. They should also be supportive of youths who are left behind. These youths can find exciting interests, and they can develop new skills and achieve amazing goals. More youths like Dan are needed for the develop­ment of the country.

A recalibrated mission of lead­ership practices and studies can make a difference. It can be a launch pad for higher social mobility for those youths who are otherwise con­demned to remain at the bottom.

Simone Galimberti is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE, an NGO partnering with youths living with disabilities

[email protected]

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