Submit your Article

India will go to polls this month to elect a government for the next five-years. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) is seeking a third consecutive victory under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with a bigger and broader mandate this time. In a politically charged atmosphere, blame games among and between political parties are common. 

In a surprise entry, Prime Minister Modi raised the issue of Katchatheevu island, a past territorial dispute between India and Sri Lanka resolved in 1974 by the two governments through an understanding. For an Indian electorate, the border dispute with Pakistan and China has made more sense in raising a nationalistic mood in the past. Still, Katchatheevu is a political masterstroke by the BJP targeting the electorate in the state of Tamil Nadu who continue to feel the ire of the 1974 agreement. 

In a recent tweet, Prime Minister Modi took a dig at the opposition party, Indian National Congress (INC), accusing it of weakening India’s unity and interests by giving away Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka in 1974. Whether ceding Katchatheevu was a shortsighted move by the then firebrand Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, under whose leadership India had defeated Pakistan in 1971, the BJP leaves no stone unturned in framing it as one aimed at political gains. 

The fishermen from both sides used to access an island called Katchatheevu in the narrow Palk Strait between Sri Lanka’s northern district of Jaffna and India’s southern state, Tamil Nadu, to dry their nets and replenishment activities. Historically, Katchatheevu fell under British rule in India and became a contested territory post-Indian independence. 

Following long-held negotiations and existing goodwill, the then Indian PM Gandhi and her Sri Lankan counterpart Sirimavo Bandaranaike signed an agreement in 1974 to demarcate the maritime boundary where Katchatheevu ceded to Sri Lanka. 

Considering the resource richness of the waters, Sri Lanka soon asserted its sovereign rights over the island and prevented Indian fishermen from accessing it. It was against India’s expectations that Sri Lanka would consider cultural and historical aspects and allow Indian fishermen to access the territory. 

Katchatheevu has raised regional sentiments in Tamil Nadu following the detention of 6,184 Indian fishermen and seizing of 1,175 fishing vessels in the last 20 years—as reported by Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar. He added that while previous governments ignored and used the issue for political purposes, BJP takes the fishermen’s issue seriously. 

By selecting BJP headquarters to hold a press conference on a foreign policy matter, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar kept the matter under political ambit. He avoided making it the position of the government of India. The Sri Lankan foreign minister has responded, saying Sri Lanka does not intend to entertain further discussions on the matter. 

With BJP expecting to sprout its political clout in Tamil Nadu in the forthcoming elections against powerful regional parties, including ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)—an ally of the Congress India National Developmental Inclusive Alliance—it finds Katchatheevu as a solid point to start its campaign. 

Away from the politics of Katchatheevu, small island and island countries are finding prominence in India’s geostrategic thinking today, especially after China’s expansionist entry into the Indo-Pacific. China’s presence in the regional waters became more prominent after Sri Lanka leased its Hambantota Port to China for 99 years. Also, with a China-friendly government in the Maldives, India needs allies to address the China challenge.   

Strategic consideration to find like-minded allies to counter China resulted in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or QUAD—a diplomatic partnership between Australia, India, Japan and the United States, committing to supporting an open, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific that is inclusive and resilient. While China makes little in QUAD’s black and white, the unsaid understanding among the QUAD members is attempting to resolve the China challenge. 

In developing its capabilities, India’s ambitions as a naval power in the Indo-Pacific and beyond are visible from its assertion as a ‘responsible naval power’. Recent rescue missions by the Indian Navy concentrating on combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea have involved deploying guided missile cruisers, marine patrol aircraft and drones to monitor commercial shipping activity in the region.

In conclusion, by raising the Katchatheevu issue, the BJP may have increased the political temperature in Tamil Nadu, but it has not affected India’s relations with Sri Lanka. If something comes up from Sri Lanka, India knows it’s manageable, especially after Delhi rescues it from the economic crisis. However, India’s signaling of its rising naval aspirations, including maritime security in the Indo-Pacific and beyond, must be seen from a broader lens of Delhi’s changing strategic geography.

There is no shortage of discussion in Kathmandu on the changing geopolitical landscape and the challenges Nepal currently faces in its external relations. Although serious research and publications are lacking, Kathmandu-based think tanks somehow manage to secure financial resources to organize programs at upscale hotels. Lately, there has been a boom in the number of foreign strategic and geopolitical experts visiting Kathmandu on the invitation of universities, think tanks and media houses, among others. These international and regional experts often visit Kathmandu to attend seminars and talk programs on geopolitics and foreign policy.

Although political leaders also participate in such programs as keynote speakers, only a few have the appetite and enthusiasm to listen to expert opinions. The main arguments of foreign policy watchers in Kathmandu can be summarized in the following points: there should be a national consensus among parties, at least on foreign policy issues; Nepal should strike a balance between India and China while maintaining cordial ties with the US; and Nepal should prioritize economic issues over strategic ones when dealing with major powers. While examining the election manifestos of major political parties, it seems all parties have the same position on foreign relations, as they all emphasize an independent foreign policy; balanced and cordial relationships with both neighbors; adherence to non-alignment and Panchsheel; and engagement with major powers on economic terms, among others. 

However, there are differences in the tone, tenor, and conduct of foreign policy between the Nepali Congress (NC) and major communist parties, particularly CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center), which have been in power for the past three decades. To illustrate these differences, let's consider some recent examples. Nepal voted in favor of a UN resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but communist parties opposed it, stating that it goes against Nepal's policy of non-alignment. While some former foreign ministers from left parties said it was okay, dominant communist leaders saw it as a tilt toward the West. Many communist leaders support Putin's justification of the attack, which is why Russia is engaging with communist leaders, not NC leaders. When it comes to China, communist parties, mainly CPN (Maoist Center), are a step ahead and more vocal than NC in upholding the one-China policy. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, during his China visit last year, made a commitment on the one-China principle (previously policy) and said Nepal stands against Taiwan independence. He often repeats the same statements in Kathmandu. We do not hear such statements from NC leaders. 

Earlier, in 2018, the then Nepal Communist Party-led government supported Hong Kong's new security laws. Another issue is the reported border encroachment by China in Humla district. NC formed both government-level and party-level panels to investigate this matter, but communist government and party leaders often reiterate that there is no border encroachment by China at all. 

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is another case in point. Though the basic framework of BRI was signed by NC's foreign minister Prakash Sharan Mahat in 2017, the party is less interested in its implementation. Some leaders are openly opposing it. NC leaders may disagree, but it is clear the party is not as enthusiastic about BRI as communist parties. With India, communist parties are more vocal about some disputed issues such as the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty, the Eminent Persons' Group (EPG) report and border disputes. These issues have also been mentioned in the Common Minimum Program (CMP) of the present coalition government. However, the NC is not as vocal about those agendas. Instead, some NC leaders have started saying that there is no need to amend the 1950 treaty, and the party has not taken ownership of the EPG report. 

Regarding the US, fringe communist parties often criticize the US as an imperialist power. While mainstream communist parties do not directly subscribe to these views, there are differences between NC and communist parties on democracy and US policies. Communist parties are skeptical about America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy. They all were against the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) program in Nepal initially. While NC openly supported, lobbied, and was even ready to break the alliance with Maoists to get the MCC endorsed by Parliament, left parties either opposed it or sat on the fence. Whether one agrees or disagrees, there is now more cordiality between China and Nepal's communist parties. China is engaging with NC at least at the government level. Over the past few years, it is a bitter reality that there is a lack of trust between NC and China, and between India and communist parties. The relationship between NC and China is not so cordial, mainly after 2015-2016, though Chinese leaders and scholars often remind NC about the role played by BP Koirala in laying the basic foundation between the two countries.

Additionally, political parties have highly politicized issues relating to major countries. This has been further exacerbated by coalition governments and political instability. It is futile to expect any substantial progress when parties with different views and political ideologies form a coalition government. There is a tendency among parties not to take ownership of agreements or understandings signed by governments led by other parties. $Due to the sudden changes of foreign ministers, if not the government itself, foreign powers are finding it very difficult to deal with Nepal. All this has eroded trust in the political parties and successive governments. There is no common vision or guiding document on how Nepal wants to engage with major powers in the changing geopolitical situation. 

No wonder, Nepal has not been successful in reaping the benefits from the economic rise of India and China. What is worrying is, there is no sign of improvement in the near future. There will not be political stability for at least next four years because parties have already agreed to lead the government by turns. Even after the 2027 elections, political stability remains elusive, as the possibility of a single party getting a majority is slim. If parties are responsible, they should deal with this issue seriously. Parties should refrain from taking sides or positions on big-power rivalry and should not politicize development issues; instead, they should focus only on economic engagement. However, there is slim hope with the current set of leaders whose only aim and ambition seems to be grabbing power by appeasing external power centers. The current polarization in the political landscape must be stopped without delay.

Located between China and India, Nepal ranks 108th out of 180 countries in the Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index (CPI), a very unenviable position compared to neighbors like Bhutan (26th), the Maldives (93rd) and India (93rd). What offers us a little bit of solace is a relatively better position than other neighbors, namely Sri Lanka (115th), Pakistan (133rd), Bangladesh (149th) and Afghanistan (162nd).

In my reading, a lack of transparency and open-access data policy is mainly to blame for a poor showing vis-a-vis CPI on the part of Nepal, which in 2015 became a federal secular democratic republic, a political order that is supposed to have democracy, transparency, and access to information at its core. 

Access to information is vital for a smooth operation of this political order because it helps not only to improve public service delivery but also increases public trust in government bodies. 

That is why the Constitution of Nepal has upheld the right to information (RTI), with Article 27 of the Charter declaring RTI as a fundamental right of every citizen of Nepal. 

With the aim of guaranteeing RTI, the government introduced the Right to Information Act 2007, set up a National Information Commission (NIC) in 2008, regarded as a very important step in promoting transparency and corruption in Nepal, and introduced some supporting rules in 2009. Section 4 of the Act has provisioned respect for and protection of the citizens’ right to information through classification and updation of information and dissemination of the same to the public, envisioning citizens’ ‘simple and easy’ access to information. Whereas Section 5 has a provision “to keep the information updated for at least 20 years.” 

Per the Act, both government and non-government entities must update information every three months and disclose the information even when the public does not seek it. 

Despite the open open-access data policy, none of the governmental entities (including the ministries), barring a few exceptions, have duly followed the RTI Act and other relevant rules. 

It is common for government officials to cover up corruption and malfeasance by hiding crucial information, including details of public officials' property, revenue losses, tax evasion and reports on suspicious financial transactions. 

Most of the government entities have appointed an information officer each for dissemination of information of public importance. But most of them are not very cooperative when it comes to providing data and dilly-dallying is quite common among them. 

This tendency to deny RTI is mainly due to 1) a culture of secrecy within government bodies, 2) lax implementation of RTI Act and its rules, and 3) no strict punishment for offices and personnel tasked with categorizing data and publishing them. 

It gives rise to some important questions: Are these entities functioning as per relevant rules and regulations? If  the officers have performed their tasks accordingly, then why are they hesitating to share data with the public?  

Does this unwillingness to share data reflect the concerned personnel’s vested interests? 

Whatever the reason behind this, correction measures should be taken and data made available to the people. In the absence of an open-access data policy and data-sharing mechanisms, it is impossible to verify whether the concerned personnel are discharging their duties in accordance with relevant laws or not. 

Following interventions are necessary to ensure the public’s easy access to data in Nepal: 

• Strict implementation of RTI Act 2007 and its Rules 2009 
• Implementation of new concepts in governance such as New Public Services and New Public Governance
• Activities aimed at raising awareness among the public to seek data from both government and non-government entities 
• Promotion of the culture of information dissemination and transparency through disruption of the culture of secrecy 
• Comprehensive research on identifying the impediments to open-access data-sharing systems, ways to remove the hurdles and implement the identified correction measures 

 The author, a veterinary officer at the Department of Livestock Services, is a graduate of the University of Cambridge

One crucial element often overlooked in pursuing educational excellence is the role of textbooks. Textbooks hold the power to shape future generations' minds, yet they may fall short of their potential. The recent findings from Nepal’s first-ever textbook audit have shed light on the shortcomings of our educational materials, making way for much-needed changes in curriculums, textbooks, and teacher development. 

This first-ever audit of Nepal’s diversity, equity and inclusion in textbooks involved nearly 2,000 people in seven provinces over a year of intensive analysis, discussion and review. It analyzed how Nepal’s diverse communities are portrayed in textbooks and provided data-driven, citizen-informed feedback to help inform curriculum revision and future action steps. The audit’s revelations have brought to light a significant reality: Our textbooks do not fully meet their commitment to delivering a comprehensive and inclusive education to all students. With outdated information and biased narratives entrenched within these materials, there’s a need to enhance the essence of learning without compromising, which can positively impact both students and teachers.

Picture this: A teacher in a bustling classroom, equipped with textbooks that hold the keys to knowledge. These textbooks are not just tools for teaching; they're bridges that connect students to the vast world of learning. But what happens when those bridges are riddled with gaps, biases and inaccuracies? It’s like trying to navigate a maze with half the map missing. Without access to updated and inclusive educational materials, teachers may be left grappling with the challenge of reconciling the discrepancies within their curriculum, ultimately hindering their ability to facilitate meaningful learning experiences for students.  

Textbooks are the superhero capes of the education world — every student gets one, regardless of their background or circumstances. In the grand arena of education, textbooks emerge as the silent giants, wielding immense power over the minds of eager learners. Students from all walks of life dive into the same textbooks regardless of their background or circumstances, such as socioeconomic status, gender or geographic location. The quality of their teachers and schools may be vastly different, and there are limits to how well that can be controlled. Yet, textbooks are in the hands of every student.

As depicted by Homraj Acharya, principal investigator of the textbook audit report for Nepal, textbooks strive to embody diversity. Nonetheless, the textbook audit highlights a lack of representation, particularly in names, gender and cultural diversity. Among the three primary grade books for Grades 2, 7, and 10, specifically in Nepali and Social Studies, it was observed that they overlook Dalits, perpetuate stereotypes about women, and marginalize minorities and Madhesis.

One recommendation from the textbook audit report is to diversify names in educational materials to foster cultural inclusivity. Analysis of a Nepali Grade 10 text revealed that while efforts were made to include diverse names, the majority remained Sanskrit-based. About 57 percent consisted solely of first names without additional caste or ethnic indicators, indicating a broad representation. Meanwhile, the remaining 43 percent featured distinct surnames or first names implying a particular group, such as ‘Hariprasad’, which suggests Brahmin, or ‘Dawa’, indicating Sherpa heritage. Despite efforts to foster diversity, the analysis uncovered an imbalance, with more than half of the names bearing caste or ethnic markers aligned with the Brahmin-Chhetri community. Despite representing Janajati names, a significant portion comprised Sherpa names, possibly due to their association with multiculturalism and Buddhism. This highlights the challenge of achieving genuine inclusivity in textbook content without perpetuating imbalances.

Furthermore, textbook audit reports indicate that in textbooks, teachers are portrayed as exemplars of maturity but without encountering challenges related to gender equality. Unfortunately, they are also depicted as using shaming as a solution for ADHD-type behavior, showcasing a lack of teacher awareness and sensitivity. Moreover, gender stereotypes prevail. In textbooks like Nepali Grade 10, gender stereotypes are reinforced through the portrayal of teachers. For instance, in accompanying images, men are depicted engaging in public cleaning campaigns or as teachers, while women are confined to childcare, hygiene, and domestic tasks. Additionally, yoga and fitness instructors are predominantly depicted as male. This perpetuation of traditional gender roles underscores the importance of addressing biases and promoting gender equality in educational materials.

In textbooks such as Nepali Grade 7, students encounter depictions of teachers that raise concerns. For instance, in the chapter titled ‘The Bud of Creativity’ (Nepali 7, p 85), authored by Jhamak Ghimire, a differently-abled writer, there is a troubling lack of introduction about her disability. This oversight perpetuates non-inclusive representation and potentially sensationalizes her condition. This oversight risks presenting a non-inclusive narrative, where students may encounter vivid descriptions of bodily deformity and distressing instances of abuse without understanding the broader context of Ghimire’s resilience and creativity. This highlights the urgent need for a thorough review of Teacher’s Guides to ensure accurate and sensitive representation of individuals with disabilities, fostering a truly inclusive learning environment. Such revisions are crucial to prevent the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes and promote understanding and empathy among students. Teacher’s Guides were mentioned in the textbook audit report to be beyond its scope, which looks at what students see, read and have in hand. 

Thus, policymakers, educators, parents, students, and individuals from all walks of life should consider the textbook audit report for our education system to be inclusive, ensuring students, teachers and the entire nation benefit. Strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion in textbooks enhances the learning experience and promotes a fairer and more harmonious society. Hence, it is essential to unite efforts in implementing the audit’s recommendations and to develop educational materials that cater to the diverse needs of all, irrespective of their backgrounds or situations.