Submit your Article

Chock-a-block traffic has pushed many countries to prioritize the development and operation of mass transit systems, but Nepal is an exception with the metropolis of Kathmandu offering a glaring example.

There’s a great scope for transit systems like underground train, monorail, the cable car and trolley bus/bus rapid transit (BRT) in Kathmandu as they can ease congestion to a great extent.

But developing and operating such a mass transit system in Kathmandu is easier said than done as several rounds of discussions conducted on the topic in the past have shown. 

First and foremost, developing such a system requires a long time and huge investment. The metro and rail systems are not the only alternative, though. Ropeway/cable car can also be used for urban transport at a lower cost compared to other modes of mass transit.  

In reality, BRT has a few fundamental differences compared to the existing system. BRT buses use the existing road facility, but such buses have a higher passenger carrying capacity, use a dedicated lane and have fewer stops. 

In many countries, the public sector operates BRT, which requires huge investments, with subsidies from the government to fulfill social obligations. However, there’s an absence of a public sector entity willing to shoulder this responsibility in Kathmandu, a city of almost 4m people, thanks to an influx of people from hilly and Tarai regions, who come here looking for jobs, for medical treatment and study opportunities. A large number of people move on motorcycles and scooters, while a huge number also shuttles through buses, cars, taxis, three-wheelers and on the recently-introduced BRT system along the Kathmandu-Suryavinayak stretch. 

While the operation of BRT is highly appreciable, it should have less stoppage and the buses in use should be a bit larger with more passengers carrying capacity. As such, 1.74m vehicles (including two-wheelers) in operation along the total road stretch of 247.7 km in and around Kathmandu do not appear to be sufficient to cater to an ever-increasing demand for mobility. 

Kathmandu witnesses massive congestions along its arteries during peak hours: 9-11 am and 5.00-6.30 pm. In the absence of a mass transit system, it is a daily struggle for commuters to report to duty on time and return home on time by getting onboard any means of transport available.  

Also, the availability of soft credit facilities for the purchase of vehicles and absence of long-term import restrictions mean a geometrical surge in the number of vehicles in the city, which only worsens congestion.

There’s no doubt that the existing public transport system does not offer a hassles-free bus/microbus ride to a multitude, especially during peak hours. Traffic Police deserve credit for introducing a relatively good traffic management system by designating stoppages at lay-byes and other suitable sites with necessary segregation.  

In addition, a queuing system in place for potential riders in Ratna Park and other crowded areas of Kathmandu where more than 1,700 buses arrive and depart for different destinations daily has a vital role to play in traffic management. 

Despite its effectiveness, this queuing system is yet to be replicated in several other locations. 

In some cases, the pickup system has been chaotic due to the absence of a specified bus terminal where the bus originates and terminates. 

At present, all buses around some of the important locations, in the absence of designated bus terminals, are starting or terminating their journeys from available lay-byes or other areas. 

In such a chaotic situation, Kathmandu Metropolis has designated Kathmandu Bus Park (terminal) at Gongabu as the origin and destination for all buses to and from Kathmandu. This is a commendable act as it has also helped ease congestion. 

The author is a former Executive Director, Nepal Intermodal Transport Development Board. He can be reached at [email protected]

The article is Part I of a two-part series

Reflecting upon the intricate challenge of harmonizing theoretical principles with the practical facets agreed upon by political parties and commissions in previous political discussions, the ongoing discourse on transitional justice is deeply engaging. Almost 17 years have elapsed since the signing of the peace agreement, yet transitional justice persists as a sensitive and complex matter. There exists a unanimous consensus that for the peace agreement to be truly meaningful, the process of creating and implementing laws, along with the effective functioning of commissions, is imperative.

Transitional justice is not merely a concern for specific political entities but also a national priority. The key lies in fostering unity and responsibility among political parties, extending beyond legal technicalities. Moreover, strict adherence to the Supreme Court's interpretation and orders throughout the transitional justice process is a crucial aspect of moving forward.

It is important to recognize the prevalence of misleading narratives surrounding transitional justice and advocate for careful discussions to dispel such misconceptions. A special committee comprising experts and members having diverse political backgrounds must be formed and this committee should play a pivotal role in providing recommendations on the bill related to transitional justice. It is necessary to address ambiguities in the bill concerning the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity through simplified definitions.

Key recommendations are the significance of inclusivity when establishing a commission for truth-seeking, reconciliation and the identification of victims of transitional justice. Emphasis should be on the inclusion of individuals with national recognition and subject-specific expertise. Furthermore, tasks related to transitional justice, encompassing truth-seeking, prosecution, reparations and institutional reforms, need prioritizing.

Underscoring the importance of embracing restorative and transformative justice concepts involves active involvement of victims in the dialogue process to gain their trust and effectively address their grievances. The report puts forward a comprehensive approach that includes truth-seeking, prosecutions for crimes committed, reparations for the victims and institutional reforms to prevent future injustices.

There should be no fight against the victims of the war. Urging introspection among all stakeholders, emphasizing the need to expedite the transitional justice process and putting an end to injustice—these must be our priorities. The event, which served as a platform for prominent figures to share their perspectives and suggestions, stands as a crucial step toward forging a path forward in the transitional justice process in Nepal.

In conclusion, the recommendations presented here are grounded in the belief that careful, inclusive and comprehensive approaches are essential for effective progression of transitional justice in Nepal. By prioritizing national unity, dispelling misleading narratives and actively engaging victims in the process, all stakeholders should work collectively toward a society that values accountability, reconciliation and lasting peace. The journey ahead is challenging, but with concerted efforts from political parties, experts and the broader community, the goals of transitional justice can be achieved.

The author is executive director at Nepal Center for Security Governance

All G7 member-states are members of G20, while China is at the center of G77. Of the BRICS nations, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil was the only head of the state and the government present at the Havana G77 summit whereas South Africa sent a cabinet minister for the summit. More than 100 countries, including 30 heads of state and government and those aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement, were present at the summit of the grouping that has 18 of the 25-member Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, observer states or dialogue partners as members in addition to seven of G20 member-states. 

The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres participated in the recent summits of BRICS, G20, G77 and the 78th UN convention. Guterres’ emphasis was on a new global order with increased participation from the Global South in the global governance system.

Guterres has asked G20 to assume leadership on two fronts: Emission reduction and climate justice. Eighty percent of emissions is from G20 countries, he pointed out, stressing the need for the latter to reduce emissions and build resilience in communities suffering the impacts of climate change. 

“This multiplicity of summits reflects the growing multipolarity of our world,” Guterres observed ahead of the Havana meeting and warned, “Multipolarity could be a factor in escalating geostrategic tensions, with tragic consequences.” 

At the G77 summit in Havana, pointing to climate and foreign debt, he articulated that the Global South was “trapped in a tangible global crisis.” The world is failing developing nations, he said, describing the grouping as “a champion of multilateralism”. Guterres stressed that G77 should “champion a system rooted in equality that is ready to reverse the injustice and neglect of centuries and deliver for all humanity and not only for the privileged”. 

China stated that it “will always make South-South cooperation a priority” in its dealing with the outside world.  Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel, the chair, said, “After all this time that the North has organized the world according to its interests, it is now up to the South to change the rules of the game.” 

In the realm of international relations and global governance, the roles of India and the US in the G20 and China in the G77 have significant implications. Fostered by G77, the ‘South bloc’ challenges traditional great power dominance and undertakes collective action to shape global politics. As India, the US and China navigate these blocs, their actions influence geopolitics and contribute to the ongoing dynamics of great power rivalry. Understanding these dynamics is critical for policymakers and scholars seeking to comprehend the changing landscape of international relations.

The US holds significant political influence within the G20 by virtue of its long-established global leadership and diplomatic reach. India has emerged as a voice representing developing nations and brings its unique political perspective to the forum. The US and India bring their distinct foreign policy priorities with connectivity and North-South cooperation. The US focuses on maintaining its global dominance and shaping the international order, while India emphasizes multilateralism, inclusivity and regional stability.

China pursues a distinct political strategy within the G77. Its active role, along with economic support, allows it to garner political influence, further reinforcing its position within the bloc. China seeks to promote its vision of development, connectivity and cooperation among developing nations through G77. Chinese foreign policy objectives concentrate on strengthening ties with these nations, including shaping economic relationships and securing access to resources

There is a saying that in an autocracy, one person has his way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy, no one has his way. Now, the question is, would you prefer a self-intuitive leader or an unprejudiced one, who welcomes multiple thoughts in decision-making?

I recently came across an interview with a well-known municipality representative of Nepal. He proudly said being a leader with precise visions, he does not need to take advice from others. This reality-based short story depicts and sums up our political condition in which leaders/power-holders generalize their interests as a group or community’s interest guided by their self-intuitive knowledge. I wonder why our political parties and leaders are evolving into cult leaders. Why are they so reluctant to listen to others to identify the real policy problems by diving into some basic questions like what is the context, who are the key actors and other stakeholders, what is the policy problem, what are the relevant variables and outcome criteria?

Policy problems have multiple realities. It is a universal truth that reality is multifaceted, and actors entertain different ways to understand the issues and employ several criteria to work out solutions. In the political arena, there are many situations that we cannot measure, classify, and understand thoroughly. A positivistic interpretation cannot unveil many dimensions of policy problems as people reflect their limited knowledge, time, and memory. It is crystal clear that this sort of practice to analyze a problem will ultimately lead to a conflict in society. Thus, policymakers should adopt a dynamic approach to deal with a web of underlying realities of problems.

The next most fundamental thing is that policy issues are value-laden. Social values and policy problems co-exist in parallel. Values include justice, freedom, respect, community, and responsibility. Something can be two or more different things at once when problems appear along with social issues. To say it precisely, diverse groups may not hold the same thoughts on the same political phenomena as they judge it based on their principles, beliefs, status and many other elements. The Gurung community might hold different views from the Newar community on the same subject matter. Thus, policy-makers should be ultra-conscious about not destroying social harmony and contracts.

In the policy universe, problems intertwine with each other. It means a problem may have more than one variable. Policy problems arise from sociological, psychological and economic systems. For instance, multiple causes may be behind youth unemployment. To find diverse causes of the problem, public officials have to go through research and analysis before making decisions. Understanding the dynamics of the issues helps design effective policies and prevent unintended consequences This is one of the fundamental ways to ensure the rationality of decisions with adequate evidence.

Decision-makers should accept that their knowledge is limited. In his decision theory called Bounded Rationality, Herbert Simon talks about how our knowledge is partially rational. Human beings attempt to satisfy their personal interests, rather than optimize solutions. We often tend to analyze each subject in terms of our individual interests. He further believes humans cultivate logic and reason based on prior knowledge and experience, which ultimately leads to a false sense of rationality because we do not have all the information available. Deborah Stone, a renowned scholar, identifies that poor decisions of those in political power are the main reason for unfairness and unrest rather than culture, geography, climate, or any other factor. Hence, policymakers should be open to suggestions and criticisms for a healthy democratic practice.

The involvement of diverse groups/peoples helps to strengthen democratic practices in decision-making. James Buchanan, a Nobel laureate, assumes that individual political actors are guided by their self-interest in choosing the course of action to their best advantage. Circumvention of this practice is essential in developing nations to foster good governance. There is an old Sanskrit proverb that it is only through the articulation of diverse opinions that truth will finally emerge. It shows how important communication is among diverse groups to keep petty interests of power holders in check. Frank Fisher has introduced the ‘Argumentative Turn’ technique to exchange ideas among decision-makers. This technique allows ample opportunities for constructive debate, discourse, and conversation promoting communication among diverse thoughts in policy analysis. The main idea is that reason/logic does not evolve in individualism but in collectivism. This methodology being humanistic, subjective, and non-deterministic would help promote healthy discourse on political controversies.  

Policymakers have to formulate policies in various situations. They should comply with the democratic spirit to ensure good governance in underdeveloped nations. There are a few things that policymakers should be aware of before making policies. The most fundamental thing is that policy problems have multiple realities with values. They should know the dynamic nature of problems. To overcome such political dilemmas, they must be mindful of their limited knowledge and allow adequate room for people in policymaking.