Submit your Article

After knowing that as much as 38 quintals of gold had been smuggled into Kathmandu in the past five years, would you still want to get or gift golden jewelry? It was indeed an example of a very well-orchestrated crime involving commoners to serving/retired police personnel, and gold sellers. But we as the consumers/buyers of gold, there was no way we could find out that beneath the luster of the glittering jewelries were criminal activities.

People in Nepal still invest a lot of money in gold, mostly at rituals such as weddings where wearing enough jewelry is considered a matter of pride, not just wealth. There are also customs of unnecessarily gifting golden jewelry during weddings. While these days parents or couples make a choice whether or not to gift or be gifted jewelry, dowries are still prevalent. If demands are not met by the bride’s families, it could eventually result in the bride’s expulsion, or even death. There are reports to validate this! Thus the demand for gold, and the motive of the smugglers.

There are also people who think stocking up gold is one of the best ways to save money as the value does not depreciate much. But how can you know which gold stores have followed due pro­cess of customs? The practice of providing certificates of genuine gems and following of customs pro­cedure should start soon.

Although not a fan of jewelry, during my sister’s wedding, I wanted to buy diamond as I don’t like the color of gold. It was strange that unlike gold sellers, the diamond seller was offering me a “heavy dis­count”. I did not understand. How can there be discount if those were expensive gems, extracted from mines, transported from overseas? I checked with the sellers if the nose stud I was wearing was a dia­mond or not. They said it was. But it was not! I had bought it for less than Rs 300. I guess it was a zirconia stud. Anyway, their answer was enough for me to drop the idea of buying diamond. They could be easily fool­ing many others with substitutes available for diamonds.

As the story is unfolding about the gold racket, of how people were abusing their power, I don’t think I would buy gold again. When travelling, if our suitcase is slightly over the prescribed weight, we need to get the extra weight out, even if it’s just garments. But after reading reports that gold was flushed in toilet or dropped in trash cans or through the holes of air­craft’s ladder, I am outraged at the airport security.

The case of 33.5 kg smuggled gold became news only when it went missing. After successfully breach­ing the airport customs rules! Three people have already died and there is a case against 63 people includ­ing Nepal Police staff. The case should conclude not only with tough actions against the culprits but also with a new rule of providing certifi­cates for any gold people purchase. It might be too soon for people to give up their demand for gold but new rules should be in place soon to prevent future crimes.

Action/Sci-fi

DEADPOOL 2

CAST: Ryan Reynolds, Julian Dennison, Josh Brolin, Morena Baccarin, Stefan Kapicic, Zazie Beeetz

DIRECTION: David Leitch

3 and a half stars

Since the release of the first ‘Deadpool’ movie in 2016, we’ve come to embrace Deadpool as a kick-ass superhero, not because he repeatedly creates bloody mayhems or because of his superfast healing powers. We love him for the sar­casm and meta-humor he produces by taking jabs at superhero genre clichés and American pop culture. Leading star Ryan Reynolds has become so synonymous with this character that it’s difficult to watch him in any other movie without being reminded of Deadpool. The new film in the series is directed by David Leitch, who takes over from Tim Miller. But Leitch only elaborates on Miller’s style. ‘Deadpool 2’ feels like an extension of its predecessor, as Miller strums the same chord progression of sar­casm, mayhem and randomness, and in a juicier combo.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) aka Deadpool is tangled in his nine-to-five masked vigilante duty fighting the city’s toughest criminals. His personal life with girlfriend Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) is going great and they decide to start a family, until a personal tragedy throws Wade’s plans down the drain, turning this devil-may-care superhero into a sui­cidal freak. To shake him up, his old pal Colossus (Stefan Kapicic) welcomes him to the X-Men, as a trainee.

Then one day during duty call, Deadpool has to rescue an unsta­ble teenager mutant named Russell (Julian Dennison) but his reckless negotiation style lands him and the kid in a maximum security prison for mutants. Deadpool’s troubles multi­ply when Cable (Josh Brolin) makes an entry. To stop this time-traveling cyber-assassin, Deadpool resorts to his wacky ways to assemble his own team of avengers.

There isn’t any novelty in the sto­ryline. Haven’t we seen heroes ver­sus time-travelling assassins before? Yes we have in sci-fi flicks like ‘Ter­minator’ and ‘Looper’. This film hits the same notes. But it makes up for the pedestrian plot with a good dose of smart one-liners and gags. They are the gems of the movie and keep it enjoyable. We can’t forget that at its core ‘Deadpool 2’ is a superhero movie and it tries to be one in its elaborately long and complicated action sequences. Nevertheless, the film doesn’t carry the weight of the world on its shoulder by trying to be another Avengers, where the pro­tagonist(s) need to save their world from big calamities. Here the con­flict is at personal level and stakes are smaller.

Ryan Reynolds is the ideal Dead­pool, striking the right balance in depicting the softer side of Wade Wilson and the mischievous effec­tiveness of Deadpool. Kiwi actor Julian Dennison impresses in his first big Hollywood role. (Those who want to see more of him, I recom­mend a little known Kiwi film called ‘Hunt for the Wilderpeople’). Brolin delivers his Cable with astounding grumpiness. But it’s the supporting characters who are the real winners. Right from the meek taxi driver Dopinder (Karan Soni) to Domino (Zazie Beeetz) whose superpower is being lucky, all have scene-stealing presence.

I don’t know how long the ‘Dead­pool’ film series will retain its edgi­ness and genre-parodying style. But at the moment, nobody’s likely to take the spotlight away from it.

As expected, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Nepal brought to the fore the bitterness in Nepal-India relations and also between the Hills and the Madhes. Nonetheless, there is much to be said about an Indian Prime Minister visiting Nepal three times in quick succession in a context where there had been no official visits from India to Nepal for over two decades before Modi’s tenure. And without improv­ing economic ties and establishing mutual respect with India, it is vir­tually impossible for Nepal to even begin to flourish. Though Modi did not publicly apologize for the block­ade, which most Nepalis wanted, there was tact in his demeanor this time that said in no unquiet terms that he knows what he had done.

With the blockade over two years behind us, Modi’s visit did open up the avenue for a new and redefined relationship with India, albeit per­haps not as revolutionarily redefined as some of us might have hoped.

Changing narrative

If we go back to 3 August 2014, and remember Modi’s address to Nepal’s then-Constituent Assem­bly, the change in his language and narrative to accommodate the cur­rent political realities of a UML-led government is quite apparent. In fact, the way in which politics was dealt with this time was seemingly not to deal with it at all; all atten­tion was shifted to the political rel­evance of the religious purpose of Modi’s visit.

It was quite apparent that elec­tions in India had driven Modi’s “pil­grimage” to Nepal. Nonetheless, for our political actors, some space was created to engage with India about its promises to deliver on develop­ment programs in Nepal.

Addressing Parliament on May 13, PM Oli shared an overview of Modi’s visit, and although little can be known about the intentions to realize any of the plans, Oli had thought through what he was look­ing to achieve from Modi’s visit. PM Oli however did not receive the public applaud he had hoped for his attempts to redefine relations with India, for example, by not going to welcome Modi himself at the airport or accompanying him everywhere. In fact, Modi’s visit and the way the Nepali state handled it have elicited mixed responses.

In particular, it was odd to see that in Janakpur, the provincial government played an integral role in engaging with the Indian Prime Minister on his visit to the Janaki temple, whereas on his visit to Muktinath, the provincial gov­ernment was nowhere to be seen. There were other anomalies that were also brought up on social media platforms, for example, the government’s decision to host the program at Rastriya Sabha Griha primarily in English and secondarily in Nepali, raising concerns over the relevance to do so.

Trade deficit

Toward the end of Modi’s trip, the Nepal-India joint statement released on 12 May has set a September 2018 deadline to outline a clear imple­mentation plan for bilateral agree­ments. To understand the gravity of the agreements’ implementation, let’s take one agreement as an exam­ple: The two prime ministers have agreed to review the considerable trade deficit between the two coun­tries and find ways to address it.

Our trade dependency with India is high. Whereas 64 percent of our total import comes from India, only 12 percent comes from China. Similarly, 66 percent of our total export goes to India while only 3 percent goes to China. According to the Trade and Export Promo­tion Center (TEPC), Nepal’s trade deficit in 2017 was around Rs 500 billion; we imported goods worth around Rs 540-550 billion whereas we exported goods worth only Rs 30-40 billion.

Furthermore, in the last decade, the average growth in export is 4.2 percent whereas the average growth in import is 18.2 percent. Our current Finance Minister has been relentlessly going on about how without increasing investment and production in the country, there is no way to address the trade deficit with India.

In sum, if tangible methods to decrease the trade deficit with India are implemented jointly by the two governments, Nepal will gain much in terms of economic growth. But it’s very clear it will require more than lip service on the part of both the Indian state and our own leaders.

The agreement on addressing the trade deficit is just one of the many others that were reached, which if sincerely implemented, could pro­foundly impact Nepal’s everyday reality. Arun III hydroelectric proj­ect, which ironically was obstructed by the UML for over a decade, has been inaugurated.

There have been agreements on more air routes, more cross-bor­der routes, the Ramayana circuit etc. which have the potential for tremendous positive impact. But it ultimately boils down to the will and resources on the part of both actors to bring the agreements to fruition. PM Oli may well try to pressurize India to act, and act fast, for his visit to China has also just been con­firmed for June. Stay tuned.

Besides the senseless “tra­dition” of our prime minis­ters making India their first foreign port of call following the 1990 political change, there is another irritating ritual that is not much discussed. Nepal needs to assure, promise and pledge that it will not allow its land to be used against India at the end of every bilateral talk between the leaders of the two countries. While our leaders may feel it’s just a simple ritualistic statement to make their hosts or guests happy, it nonetheless implies that we either were or are insensitive to India’s security concerns. Now, if one looks at history, it’s always India that is insensitive to our security interests and allows its territory to be used against the government of the day. As the late social scientist Saubhagya Shah once wrote, no “revolution” in Nepal has succeeded without India’s active support, a state­ment which was later corroborat­ed by the writers close to Indian establishment in their books on the Maoist insurgency and polit­ical transition in Nepal. Likewise the Nepali Congress used Indian territory against the Nepali state throughout the 1960s and the most of the 1970s. But we are yet to be assured by the Indian side; nor do we seek assurances that it will not allow its territory to be used against us.

Plane hijacking an excuse

The “ritual” has been repeated so often that almost every Nepali “scholar” writing on Nepal-In­dia relations has to suggest that our government appears sensitive to India’s security concerns. We cannot even buy modern weapons for our forc­es because it is interpreted as being insensitive to Indian securi­ty interests. Forget weapons, we can’t even implement our nation­al security policy lest we offend Indian sensitivities.

True, a plane belonging to an Indian airliner was hijacked from the Kathmandu airport in 1999 and the Indian government had to release some notorious ter­rorists in exchange for the hos­tages. And there’s been reports of anti-India criminal and terror­ist outfits operating from Nepal. But terrorists have hijacked planes from secure airports around the world, including in India, and there’s been similar release of terrorists in exchange for hostages. And no country can claim that it’s free of terrorist net­works. Using the hijacking as an excuse, India installed its own security check before boarding Indian aircraft from Kathmandu, to prove that Nepal’s commit­ment to India’s security cannot be trusted. Sadly, while the hijacking is remembered, Nepal’s help in suppressing the 1948 Hyderabad revolt is forgotten.

Nepal is doing all it can to address India’s concerns with whatever limited capacity it has. It is no secret that Nepal Police, either working on tip-offs from Indian police/intelligence or acting on its own, routinely arrests and hands over wanted criminals and terrorists to India, and the Indian police does the same with Nepali criminals hiding in India.

What India wants

Then what is it that the Indian government really wants? In the short run, it wants us to limit our engagement with China and who­ever it deems a threat. It wants us to follow its lead on foreign policy. And we are already witnessing it. It has succeeded in making the most of the world view Nepal through the Indian lens. Rarely do heads of state/government from other countries visit us, nor are our heads of state/government invited to other countries, except India and China, for official or state visits.

In the long run, just like any aspiring regional power, India wants to bring us under its security umbrella by making us and others believe that we have the capacity neither to address India’s security concerns nor to handle our defense by our­selves. All aspiring powers need to exercise power in their neighbor­hood to prove they are not to be taken lightly.

PM Oli, how about putting it this way when you need to follow the ritual next? So far we have done everything in our capacity to address India’s security concerns and we will continue to do so, and we expect our good neighbor India to reciprocate.