Submit your Article

Owing to a warning by the Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplab’-led Nepal Commu­nist Party, Bollywood superstar Salman Khan’s show in Kathman­du, scheduled for March 10, has been postponed. The show rep­resented an assault on our cul­ture and nationalism, the splinter Maoist party argued, and that the Bollywood actor was allegedly taking away the money required for national reconstruction fol­lowing the 2015 Gorkha earth­quake. Similarly, it urged people not to forget the Indian economic blockade following the promulga­tion of the new constitution. In a way, the party made it appear that stopping the show represented a victory of Nepali nationalism: we avenged all the injustices com­mitted by the Indian government by not allowing Indian actors to perform in Nepal. In yet another show of mis­placed nationalism thousands gathered to prove the Buddha was born in Nepal, when it is already accepted by the world that the light of Asia was indeed born in Lumbini, Nepal.

In this day and age, this kind of nationalism only makes us a laughing stock. This is not to say that everything is hunky-dory between India and Nepal. We are neighbors and we obviously have issues with one another. But let’s not forget that our problems with India and vice-versa are between the governments and politicians of the two countries, not between the two peoples—except occasion­ally when some ill-informed and ill-educated Indians claim Buddha and Everest as their own.

The bilateral relation is com­plicated more than it should be because both the partners are way too sensitive when dealing with each other. Our leadership believes India meddles in our internal affairs. But the irony is that the same leaders who are quite vocal about Indian med­dling are the ones who at one or another point have requested the Indian government to interfere on their behalf. Strangely enough, some of our great nationalist leaders were the same ones who requested the Indian government to impose a blockade on Nepal following the ill-advised and ill-timed coup by King Gyanendra in 2005.

Indian leadership views us as ungrateful and insensitive to its strategic interests and believes it has every right to meddle in Nepali domestic affairs because of the help provided to the polit­ical parties in the past. And India defines its interests in terms of our relations with China. This is quite hypocritical. It wants us to limit our interactions with China but then itself maintains good relations with China, barring the occasional border standoff.

The trade volume between India and China is growing and both have focused on developing people to people level ties. Nei­ther do our leaders ask nor do Indian leaders clarify what India will do to help Nepal develop if we limit our interaction/engagement with China. That’s what compli­cates things politically. It’s likely to be this way until both countries have sensible leaders, but that doesn’t mean we should compli­cate other things as well.

Coming back to the postpone­ment of the Bollywood superstar’s show, more than Biplab’s party, our government is to be blamed for it, as argued in a blog post from March 2 on mysansar.com. The show’s “postponement” rais­es many questions but hardly any­one is asking those for the fear of being labeled pro-Indian or being on the RAW payroll. The most important question is: Would the government have remained silent had the Biplav faction issued warnings against, say, a show involving Chinese celebrities? Per­haps the government reckons that cancelling the show of a global Indian cultural icon earns it some brownie points with China.

But if the government thinks that its silence and inaction please China, it is clearly mistaken.

Shows and concerts by foreign celebrities are common in China. It even allows select Bollywood movies to be screened despite a host of problems it has with the Indian government. The govern­ment-owned China Central Tele­vision’s movie channel regularly broadcasts Bollywood movies and songs. Last week, while some of us were issuing warnings against the show by Salman Khan in Nepal, one of his movies, Bajrangi Bhai­jan, was released in China and is doing rather well, according to media reports. Because unlike us, the Chinese know that culture and politics are two different matters and there’s no point in mixing the two. Ah, when will we learn?

We have just celebrated Inter­national Woman’s Day and by coincidence, in the same week, I watched a film about the American Suffragette Movement, followed closely on HBO by another film on the Civil Rights Movement. Into the whole ‘rights’ package of the first week in March, add the Human Rights Film Festival and the Vagina Monologues, both held in the Nepal Tourism Board Hall. While it’s great to celebrate the achievements of women, why in 2018 do we have a world where the rights of women, indigenous peoples, religious minorities and those with certain skin color are still an issue? Will we ever reach a point when everyone is equal? Until women stop bitching about other women, until the privileged stop looking down on those who are worse off than themselves, until men start really standing up for females, and until men “get over themselves”, I fear the answer to that question is ‘NO’.

Wow! This column got serious fast. So let’s get back to vaginas…

Written in the mid-1990s by Eve Ensler, the Vagina Monologues is an episodic play looking at consensual and non-consensual sexual expe­riences, body image, genital muti­lations, reproduction, sex work, etc. Oh, that doesn’t sound sexy at all—that sounds as if, as Ensler says, “women’s empowerment is deeply connected to their sexuality”. Ensler also says “I’m obsessed with women being violated and raped, and with incest. All of these things are deeply connected to our vaginas.” These thoughts prompted her to interview hundreds of women, out of which a play was born. Ensler found out quickly that a play could be more than a staging of drama, it could be a global call to action.

I first saw the play around the mid-2000s in Kathmandu. I found it quite shocking to hear these conver­sations take place on the stage of the City Hall. During that performance several people walked out and I thought “this is too much, too soon for Nepal”. Ten plus years later the Vagina Monologues reappeared, and I think now the time is right. Women and men are more aware, and vocal and angry about physical and sexual abuse against women and girls. And, just so you know, name calling and discussing sexual intent with some­one who is not interested is also sexual abuse.

I think back to Lainchour in the monsoon and a young guy on a scooter who was spouting terrible expletives in English as I walked through the evening rain. Since tell­ing him to “F” off wasn’t working, I chose to ignore him. Nothing he was saying was new to this woman: isn’t that fact alone very sad? He disappeared and a few minutes later someone grabbed my arm. Turning, I found a young Nepali girl of around 20 holding onto me for dear life. He had directed his nasty, verbal sexual abuse at her. For her, his obscene words were something unheard before and had affected her deeply.

Sobbing and shaking, she tried to explain to people waiting at a bus stop, but they merely looked shocked and helpless. I walked with her and offered to put her in a cab. She refused…probably thinking how she would explain arriving home by taxi. I knew she was not going to tell her parents about this incident. Why? Because it is always the wom­an’s fault—in this case she was out at 7pm. 7pm! No, not the man’s fault, says society, but her fault.

Today the Vagina Monologues are making young women in Kathman­du think and take a stand against sexual abuse. Sexual and physical abuse of women and girls is not new of course. But what is new is that women are shouting “Enough!” Encouraged by those in Hollywood and the sports arena, women and girls all over the world are finally speaking up for themselves and for their vaginas.

Two events this past week could have lasting impact on Nepal’s foreign relations, the first more so than the second. First, the two sets of Eminent Persons Groups (EPGs) formed to suggest changes to old Indo-Nepal treaties and to review bilateral ties, are reportedly close to a final deal. If India does indeed agree to amend the 1950 treaty, long decried as ‘unequal’ in Nepal, it will be a watershed in Indo-Nepal ties.

Second, the Communist Party of China (CCP) is amending the national constitution to abolish the two-term limit for China’s President and to incorporate the ‘Xi Jinping Thought’ in the charter. With this Xi Jinping, the CCP chief and the reigning President, would arguably have more power than any of the previous leaders of modern China, including Mao.

The ‘Thought’ envisages, among other things, ‘common destiny’ of China and other countries in a ‘peaceful international environ­ment’, particularly its immediate neighborhood.

Based on Indian media reports and my recent (and extensive) con­versations with two representa­tives of the four-man Nepali EPG team, the Indian change of heart is undoubtedly a result of ‘grow­ing Chinese activism’ in Nepal. Its blockade-time Nepal policy, New Delhi has come to realize, was mis­guided, and India needs an urgent ‘course-correction’ if Nepal is not to be forever lost to China.

Ready for love

India is now open to ‘regulating’ the Indo-Nepal border, such that people can cross over only thor­ough select points and only after registration. The Nepali side has also proposed that Nepal be allowed to import arms from a third country after ‘informing’ India. Nepal has, moreover, clarified that considering the vast differences in the two coun­tries’ area and population, a recip­rocal treatment for Indian nationals in Nepal is impractical. That their Indian interlocutors are even ready to discuss these issues, which had until recently been no-go areas, is a big surprise to the Nepali EPG quad.

If Modi worries about Chinese penetration into Nepal, he is right to do so. The Chinese influence in Nepal—be it in terms of the number of Chinese tourists, investments or political clout—is at an all-time high post-blockade. Xi’s consolidation of power at home will only make him more ambitious abroad.

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli knows he cannot afford to antag­onize India if he hopes to stick around. However great the Chinese influence in Nepal, he is also aware, China cannot match the extensive people-to-people contacts and the geographical proximity between Nepal and India. Yet Oli is not in a position to make a clean break with the Chinese, as the Indians perhaps expect of him.

It will be hard for Oli to abandon the popular agenda of closer ties with China, having endlessly cham­pioned it on the campaign trail—and with such success. Near the end of his political career (and perhaps, the 66-year-old sickly prime minis­ter reckons, even his life) Oli also seems keen to leave behind a strong legacy: he wants to be remembered as the first Nepali leader who dared to openly question—and do some­thing about—India’s stranglehold over Nepal.

Gujral Doctrine 2.0

Separately, Chinese President Xi has made no secret of his ambition to restore China’s past glory. To achieve this, the Chinese probably feel they have to limit the role of the US, the world’s sole military super­power, in the Asia-Pacific.

As the strategic links between India and the US multiply—the Cold War-era suspicions subdued—China is starting to eye Indian activism in the subcontinent suspiciously. China under Xi will try doubly hard to sell to immediate neighbors China’s alluring agenda of mutual prosper­ity in a ‘peaceful international envi­ronment’. Otherwise, the Chinese fear, these countries risk fall under the sway of the Americans, who are increasingly happy to use India as their smokescreen in South Asia.

In its dealings in the subcontinent, China, it can be said, has rather par­adoxically come to champion the ‘Gujral doctrine’: the former Indian prime minister’s mantra of helping India’s smaller neighbors without expecting much in return. Reality however is seldom this ideal; there really is no free lunch in interstate relations. China nonetheless has been able to convince South Asian strongmen and democrats alike of the foolishness of not trying to ben­efit from China’s stellar rise.

The inconvenient truth for India is that its cumbersome bureaucra­cy-driven decision-making is no match for the zippy trickle down authoritarian model China has per­fected. As Robert Kaplan would perhaps put it: Geography is destiny, until a strongman like Xi with inter­national imagination digs a tunnel under it.

On average, around 85 percent of public school teachers in Nepal are trained whereas the corresponding figure for private schools stands at around 15 percent. Public school teachers are better paid and have greater job security. Yet the public school system has consistently failed students. Before the SLC exams were phased out in 2016, only an average of 28 percent of public school students made it through the ‘Iron Gate’ for higher education. Our public school system has a huge management problem. Absenteeism is high both among students and teachers, and there is a general lack of discipline. Public school teacher unions are highly politicized and teachers use political connections to land secure jobs without much com­mitment to teach. In many cases, qualified teachers use an unqual­ified substitute to fill in while they go about other business. Again all these boil down to an ineffective school management that does not enforce rules and standards.

Private schools, on the other hand, are driven by profit and profit is directly linked to the performance of their students at regional and national level exams. But even the education the pri­vate schools provide (with some exceptions) cannot be called quality education by any stretch. What they are good at is getting students high marks in routine exams. There is very little critical thinking and problem-solving.

Still most students from pri­vate schools end up doing well academically and professionally. The same however isn’t true for students from public schools.Schools are supposed to pro­vide a level-playing field, yet our system does the opposite. It creates two classes of students (three, if you count the elite pri­vate schools).

To be fair, there have been efforts to reform school educa­tion but the problem is that they have been primarily focused on increasing enrollment. Some incremental reforms have been achieved through initiatives such as the School Sector Reform Program, but they do not go far enough. Nepal’s education system requires a massive overhaul, not gradual improvements.

There are several policy choic­es before the government, all of which require strong commit­ment to address head on the politicization of teachers’ union. One would hope that the new left government, which could have a two-thirds majority with Sanghiya Samajwadi Forum Nepal, would have no problem taking on the unions that have stalled reforms.

An autonomous school board or school management committee for public schools can be estab­lished—giving it broad authority to run its affairs, while linking grant transfers to performance stan­dards and enrolment rates. Par­allel to this, the government can bring another scheme involving a voucher system whereby anyone interested in enrolling their chil­dren in private schools receives a government voucher covering fees and other expenses but sub­ject to a means testing of income. These vouchers can be linked to the poverty card and nation­al social security register, which will reduce the cumbersome and lengthy process of means testing. This will force the public schools to remain competitive to receive grants or risk closure.

Clearly there is no one–size–fits– all solution. What will work in certain communities may not work in others. The key here is instilling a sense of competitive­ness in the public school system through different incentives, and linking them to the local gov­ernment’s overall performance. When the central government adopts required policy reforms, it can use conditional fiscal trans­fers to incentivize implemen­tation of these reforms. Where the first overhaul approach fails, the government could consider outsourcing the management of public schools to the private sec­tor—linking certain percentage of management fee to performance standards and enrollment rates. The idea of managing even a small percentage of nearly 30,000 com­munity schools, where the first option does not work, could be attractive for many private sector management companies.

Profits can drive competitive­ness. If spending a little more on management fee (increasing cur­rent education spending of about 4 percent of GDP to the global standard of 4.9 percent) delivers good education for the vast major­ity of students, wouldn’t that be a worthwhile investment?