Submit your Article

“I don’t ride a bike to add days to my life. I ride a bike to add life to my days.”—Writer unknown

Looking back on it, I realize I have been riding my mountain bike for 15 years today—I reckon even more. Although the years are showing (I’m 69 today), I still seem hung up about it. There must be some well-founded reasons. In fact, there are—five, among others.

When first I got down to cycling, it was a mighty tough bargain; I’d had to go through all the blood, sweat, and tears. The first few months were impossible—entirely out of my comfort zone. The steep downhills were almighty unnerving and the grueling inclines and gravel grinds made me gasp for every ounce of strength.

For me, painful falls, injuries, and bruises were commonplace—but the trials and tribulations got forgotten at the end of every ride. And I could not wait to strap on my backpack and hop onto the saddle.

Adventure

Mountain biking took my fancy out of plain curiosity. I got into it a little late in life, though—aged 53. It led to a sense of infinite newness, something out of the ordinary—an exciting discovery.

With time, it has stuck with me. I did not need to try paragliding or bungee jumping to get that heart-pounding, adrenalin-pumping kick. Mountain biking dished it out for me—tackling impossible climbs, riding single tracks through the woods or rice fields, or hurtling downhill at 40kmph—I got all the thrill I wanted.

Well-being and self-confidence

I cannot describe my feelings when climbing a steep hill or shredding down a near-vertical gradient. It helped boost my self-esteem, confidence, and overall sense of happiness; I learned to take up the challenges nature threw my way. Nothing compared to that sense of accomplishment I’d never dreamt of my whole life.

Health benefits

After a few years of cycling (I was already a diabetic when I started), that my blood glucose glycemic index, including HbA1c and lipid profile, made a tidy headway. My research on the benefits of cycling also guided me to newer findings. 

One of the best cardio workouts, cycling combines aerobic and anaerobic exercise. It holds an edge over other forms of exercise, such as running or walking, as it uses far more muscles. Physiotherapists often recommend marathoners do stationary cycling to get through runners’ knee problems. 

Cycling strengthens your quads, guts, and calf muscles and nourishes the core strength of tendons. It reinforces the knees and the lower back. After a few years of cycling, I never got lower back pain or knee problems.

As we age, our brain cells deteriorate. A regular cycling regimen helps stimulate and build new brain cells in the hippocampus—the region responsible for our memory. It further supports muscle tone, bone density, and brain neuroplasticity. 

There are more benefits: You sleep better, look younger, smoothen bowel movements, boost body immunity, improve sex life, cut down on weight—the list is a mile long.

Manages stress

Stress, anxiety, and depression are part of urban life. Active biking charges the endorphin (a hormone produced in the brain that reduces pain) levels and stimulates the building of a stress hormone known to improve mood.

It also reduces the build-up of adrenaline and cortisol (a steroid hormone), reducing stress and anxiety. One biker friend confided to me once that he would jump onto his saddle and ride the trails to take the edge off his frayed nerves whenever he had a blazing row with his spouse. What an idea!

Far from the madding crowd

The 18th-century poet Thomas Gray said that. How true it sounds to this day. Cycling whisks you off the chaotic urban sprawl to the lush woods, the laid-back country, and the intimate hills to breathe in a lungful of fresh air by the ton or be one with nature at its best—absolute felicity. 

My riding took me to places I could not have even fantasized about going on pedal power. In 2014, I bicycled to Kalinchowk (Kuri), and in 2018 to Muktinath and Lo Manthang. Most likely, it will be Manang next. 

Need I say more? Bicycling is my true calling, which has given me a fresh lease of life. So the bottom line is I will not give up spinning—not for all the tea in China!

Operating with Emotional Intelligence means being smarter with our feelings. This entails tuning into our feelings, mindful of our deeper needs, objectives, and challenges at play. It includes acknowledging these aspects to direct our behavior to promote sustainable relationships. 

In our daily life, we come across challenges that are difficult to talk about. ‘Difficult conversation’ typically involves three aspects. 

The first is the situation where stakes are high, and it’s difficult to let go of the issue because it matters to us. The second is where opinions vary. The other person may disagree with us, which could lead to a conflict. In such a situation, remaining silent feels tempting, even though the issue continues to nag at us internally.

The third aspect of difficult conversation is when our emotions run strong and we have an emotional response that manifests in our behavior, and we don’t even have to verbalize our feelings.

Four positions of ‘difficult conversation’

Just like a map helps us identify where we are to navigate our journey, understanding these four positions could help us through a difficult conversation.

Position 1

Position 1 is helpful when we feel like we are feeling stuck in judgmental thoughts. In this state, we are focused on criticizing (‘They make my life difficult!’), judging (‘They are so inconsiderate!’), and demanding (‘If they don’t do as I say!’). We might fluctuate between blaming and shaming either the other person or ourselves.

In this position, it is not just another person’s needs and challenges we are disconnected from, but also our own. Our focus on blaming and shaming (either ourselves or the other person) keeps us from connecting to our deeper feelings and unmet needs. It is difficult to direct our behavior in a way that helps us meet our needs. 

So it is important to shift from ‘difficult conversation’ to ‘learning conversation’. From ‘They just don’t understand’ to ‘This is important for both of us’; from ‘Their emotions aren’t justified’ to ‘Their emotions come from their unmet needs’; from ‘Our strategies are incompatible’ to ‘Our deeper needs are universal’; and so on. 

Position 2

Position 2 is about taking the time to transform judgmental thoughts into concrete actions that affect us, our feelings, and the needs behind those feelings. It is also about transforming our thoughts into actions that we’d like from the other person to better meet our needs. This is a step up from Position 1, where we also think about the way interaction feels, whether it is undermining our own identity and how it might be affecting our reactions.

Position 3

Position 3 is about extending empathy to the other person’s needs, objectives and challenges. We don’t have to agree with their ways; but here, we try to understand: what needs are driving their behavior? What are their feelings? What identity of theirs is perhaps threatened that they find this conversation difficult? What requests could they be making of us?

Position 4

Position 4 is about zooming out from the conversation and seeing it as a neutral observer. Who are the people involved? What do they feel and need? What would help them resolve this together? How do their sense of identity impact the interaction? 

Taking this position can help us attain a bird’s-eye-view of the scenario, as there is a certain sense of detachment that comes from being a neutral observer without any preferences or biases. This position can be hardest to take, but it helps see things more clearly. 

‘Difficult conversations’ are inevitable, but we cannot grow if we avoid them. So it’s important to check whether we are stuck in judgments or transforming a difficult interaction into a ‘learning conversation.’ The difference almost always comes down to our mindset—whether we are trying to blame and shame, or looking to connect at the level of feelings and needs. 

To reach an agreement, understanding is the key. And there’s no understanding if we cannot transform a ‘difficult conversation’ into a ‘learning conversation.’ 

The author is a co-founder of My Emotions Matter, an education initiative that helps individuals and teams learn the mindset and skills of Emotional Intelligence. Learn more at myemotionsmatter.com

Age-old. Special. People-to-people. Unparalleled. Unique. Time-tested.

Make no mistake, these are not just flowery words. Rather, they are some of the sacred, power-packed mantras that our foreign policy pundits, diplomats and high officials chant all too often to describe our relations with India.

Indeed, these incantations form a very important part–or perhaps the only important part–of their job. Over the years, these people have taken this important skill to a whole new level.

There may come a time, sooner than later, when high heavens become happy with these sweet-sounding chants and shower the devout band with flowers.  

 But let us also remember the sad times in the history of our adjectives-filled relations. The blockade in 2015 after the promulgation of a federal republican constitution through a popularly-elected Constituent Assembly meant even those faithful lips used to singing the glory of our bilateral ties had to mute themselves for a while and deal with the death and devastation that the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake had left behind. By the way, in the course of seven decades or so, Nepal has weathered at least three blockades from the wrathful gods of the modern-day Indraprastha aka Hastinapur. Despite this, our relations remain rock-solid.

Pity is, even those super-powerful mantras are no help when you are under the rubble. You have to extricate yourself, with a little help from friends and well-wishers.

Unsurprisingly, help from the modern-day Indraprastha took quite a while in coming as the demi-gods became quite angry with us for trying to chart our own destiny by shedding a bit of the historic baggage that was getting heavier and heavier, that too on a rather steep journey.

At that crucial juncture, Nepal’s supposed tilt towards Beijing did not help. Nor did the Limpiadhura-Lipulek-Limpiadhura dispute and Nepal’s move to include the 400-sq km land in her political map. Apparently, Nepal ended up paying a heavy price for giving refuge in her land to vanquished troops at the end of the Sino-Indian war of 1962. 

Then came a dispute over the birthplace of Lord Ram, with Nepal’s learned Prime Minister, KP Sharma Oli, pointing that the actual birthplace was at Ayodhyapuri in Bara district of Nepal. 

Despite the beating of the patriotic drum for the domestic audience, efforts to propitiate the Indraprastha were also in progress. 

The ruling dispensation tried a time-tested way to appease the Indraprastha by offering a pound of flesh. Indeed, gifting of the lucrative Arun III hydropower project contract perhaps undid some of the damage. 

But it became clear later that the Indraprastha was not comfortable with the Oli-led dispensation that was dealing with bruised egos and was on the verge of a split, anyways.     

The ouster of the Oli government should be read in this context as well. 

Things are back to normal after the installation of the Sher Bahadur Deuba government–or are they? The Janakpur-Jaynagar train service that has started its operation will move at its own pace, neither not too slow nor too fast as it is based on a technology that is neither too old nor too new. 

Meanwhile, efforts to propitiate the Indraprastha, which is trying to assert itself here, there, everywhere in a fast-changing global geopolitical scenario, are going on in full swing by gifting more of our lifelines, our rivers that have the potential to quench our thirst, light our homes, power our factories and run our transport systems. Indeed, they have the power to make us an economic powerhouse of sorts, provided they remain in
our hands.  

These propitiatory efforts come amid escalating energy prices resulting mainly from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the involvement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and in the wake of reports that future wars will be over fresh water.

 During his recent Indraprastha visit, Prime Minister Deuba agreed to the Nepal-India Joint Vision Statement on Power Sector Cooperation. Whether this instrument will benefit us or sell us down the river further is anyone’s guess. Pity is, our good-for-nothings don’t care.   

During the return Buddha Jayanti visit of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Lumbini, the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, Nepal was expecting the Indraprastha to open more air entry points. But that was not to be. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Deuba took the occasion to gift him another lucrative hydro project: Arun IV. 

Notably, the Indraprastha is already in possession of Arun III and Lower Arun projects and has been holding on to the Upper Karnali with impunity, for quite some time.

 All this is in keeping with the Nepali Congress’ practice of gifting major river systems in its continued efforts towards appeasing the Indraprastha that had fed it and sheltered it during its struggle against the Rana and Shah regimes. Successive generations of Nepalis should never forget that this party, while ruling the country for decades, has gifted Nepal’s lifelines like the Koshi, Gandaki, Mahakali and the Upper Karnali in its desperate bid to please its demi-gods.

Having exploited our mega-rivers to the hilt through the construction of regulatory structures in the plains and inundated large chunks of our territories, the demi-gods of the Indraprastha have begun moving northwards for the construction of multipurpose projects that not only generate green energy but also feed its river-linking project, which will transfer water from its water-surplus to water-deficit territories. 

Imagine the ecological losses we will suffer, the disasters that will result in and the ecological gains the Indraprastha will enjoy as a result of these projects! Notably, among other parts of Nepal, eastern hills are already experiencing severe drought. It will be no wonder if this is due to development works carried out with little regard for the environment, like the transfer of huge quantities of water for the construction and operation of hydropower projects. 

As the demi-gods move towards the sources of these rivers and we move with them not so willingly, the air will get thinner and thinner and we will start gasping for breath even as the burden of maintaining these relations and ‘taking them to new heights’ will largely be upon us.

Apparently, our troubles are growing by Himalayan proportions.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a one-day trip to Lumbini, Nepal on 16 May, coinciding with the 2566th birth anniversary of Lord Buddha. This trip was of high significance not because it was Modi’s fifth trip to Nepal as India’s Prime Minister, but because the jaunt was widely viewed as ‘religious diplomacy’.

Many foreign policy pundits have argued that the main objective of Modi’s religious diplomacy was to send political messages. Thus his Lumbini visit overshadowed important political and economic issues, including border disputes and discussion on the outstanding EPG report.

In this context, two important questions need to be asked. Did religious diplomacy this time trump all Nepal-India political and economic issues? And should Nepal continue promoting religious diplomacy with India as an effective foreign policy tool to strengthen bilateral ties?

Even though Modi’s visit to Lumbini was religious in nature, Nepal also achieved some of its foreign policy goals by inviting him. For example, this is the second time Modi spoke of Lumbini as the birthplace of the Buddha. The visit has also given continuity to dialogues between India and Nepal on many issues. The pact on developing hydropower projects with India’s investment, five memoranda of understanding on education and culture, and Prime Minister Deuba’s request for additional air entry routes from Bhairawa, Mahendranagar, Nepalgunj and Janakpur were some notable outcomes of Modi’s visit.

Previously, to give impetus to Nepal-India religious and cultural ties, Modi visited Janakpur, the birthplace of Sita, and Muktinath, a sacred temple for both Hindus and Buddhists. These two visits made headlines in the Indian media, widely promoting Nepal as a religious tourism site among Indians. Please note that Saudi Arabia’s religious tourism to Mecca and Medina is not only instrumental in bringing in revenue but also strengthening goodwill with many countries through cultural and religious exchanges.

Some benefits of religious diplomacy as a soft foreign policy tool are well known, but the question is: How and to what extent should Nepal promote religious diplomacy given its constitutional identity as a secular and pluralistic country?

Since Narendra Modi came to power in India in 2014, there has been an increased emphasis in employing India’s soft power in foreign policy, including the promotion of yoga through a UN Yoga Day, the global image of Mahatma Gandhi, and the worldwide outreach of India’s music and movies. However, critics also argue that Modi’s strong promotion of Hindu religious diplomacy somehow undercuts India’s other soft powers, such as its traditions of non-violence and pluralism, diversity and tolerance.

No doubt, religious diplomacy, which incorporates religious dimension into the practices of international relations, is an increasingly used diplomatic tool.  It is true that traditionally state and religion had no demarcation. Over time, when the right-based democratic systems and institutions became the cornerstone of democratic societies, the rigorous separation of state and religion started. Madeleine Albright, the former US State Secretary, once said, “Many practitioners of foreign policy– including me–have sought to separate religion from world politics, to liberate logic from beliefs that transcend logic.”

However, as Samuel Huntington noted in his famous book ‘Clash of Civilizations’, religion is also a defining element of culture and thus, having good cultural ties between nations could strengthen relations. The Obama Administration acknowledged the possibilities of religious diplomatic cooperation with the realization that religion motivates people and shapes their views. For example, the recent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan taught the world a hard lesson that bridging the gaps between political and religious spheres is important for both peace-building and nation-building.

When there is a rupture in relations between two nations, religious diplomacy can reconcile the relationship when the antagonists cease dehumanizing each other, and start seeing a bit of themselves in their enemy. For example, in track-two diplomacy, the inter-faith religious leaders often engage with diplomats and foreign policy analysts to seek solutions to complex foreign policy issues, including conflict, stabilization and peace.     

However, when religion is pushed too far as a diplomatic tool, it can disbalance a society with a secular identity. Leaders like Slobodan Milosevic of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have manipulated religion for their own purposes.

The main purpose of religious diplomacy should be to promote culture and interfaith dialogue to bridge gaps between people and societies. In the current world, diplomacy often takes place in cultural and religious contexts. This helps us understand the interplay of religion and diplomacy. Religious misunderstanding and misinformation are also fueling the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis. Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed that Ukraine is an inalienable part of Russia’s history, culture and religious space. Putin’s claim originates from the history of Orthodox Christianity in Russia. On the other hand, the Ukrainians claim that both President Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Kirill, the head of Russia’s Orthodox Church, ignore a long history of Ukrainian independence and diverse religious landscape that is fundamental to Ukraine’s national identity. Similarly, religious and social reconciliation as well as the interfaith dialogue could play an instrumental role to end the protracted conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

With this background, the question is: How could Nepal effectively use religious diplomacy to enhance diplomatic ties between Nepal and India? No doubt, the relationship is age-old and people-to-people based with many historical, social and cultural linkages. The joint prayer by Prime Minister Modi and Deuba for the peaceful and prosperous planet on the auspices of Budhha’s birthday sent a clear message to the world about how close India and Nepal are in terms of their common culture, festivals, religion, languages, and traditions.

There have been many ups and downs in Nepal-India ties in the past seven years, including during India’s undeclared economic blockade in 2015 and Nepal’s revision of political and administrative maps to claim Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura and Kalapani. These two issues stalled diplomatic correspondence between India and Nepal for a while. But Modi’s visit to Janakpur and Deuba’s visit to Varanasi have helped reopen the lines of communication.  Modi’s visit to Lumbini should be seen in this larger context.

In a nutshell, Nepal should effectively use all diplomatic measures and channels to continue dialogue with India and to find amicable solutions to outstanding issues. Given Modi’s strong affinity for elaborate Hindu religious rituals and visits to holy sites, Nepal could continue promoting its soft power through religious diplomacy, albeit with some caution.

First, religious diplomacy should be promoted as a cultural soft power, not as a boost for one religion. The religionization of politics and the politicization of religion should be avoided because this could challenge our cultural identity as a diverse country, peaceful, tolerant and harmonious society, and our status as a constitutionally secular and pluralistic country. Religious diplomacy should not be a tool to deepen religious divides but rather to bridge gaps between religions.

Second, religious diplomacy should be a means not an end. It should be used as an effective tool to promote Nepal’s tourism, investment, trade, transit and many other political, economic and social goals. 

The author is a member of the board of directors at the Institute of Foreign Affairs, Nepal