Submit your Article

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 is a historical milestone. Anyone who has read the opening sentence of this document’s Article 1 that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’, in any version of over 500 languages it is published in, considers all human beings equal.

As if the opening statement were not enough, among other explanations, Article 25 states, ‘Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

The declaration covers rights to freedom of opinion and expression, religion, marriage (which also implies reproduction), possession of property, governing by equal and universal suffrage, equal pay for equal work, parental prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Do all these not make people equal? No.

These declarations and provisions are in paper. In practice, things are different.

The world treats people differently based on sex and it starts as soon as the gender of the fetus can be identified. Synthesizing birth data from 1970 to 2017, from 202 countries and regions, and using a modelling method to fill gaps in countries with poor statistics, Fengqing Chao of the National University of Singapore and her colleagues report—in the 2019 April 15 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—excess male births in some years in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, China (including Taiwan and Hong Kong), Georgia, India, South Korea, Montenegro, Tunisia and Vietnam. The reasons were valuing sons over daughters and thus selectively aborting female fetuses. As a result, at least 23 million girls went missing before birth.

In a 2020 statement, UNICEF acknowledges almost one-third of countries have not reached gender parity (defined as having a GPI value between 0.97 and 1.03) in primary education enrolment. In Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, girls are more likely to be disadvantaged than boys. In Chad and Pakistan, for example, the GPI value is 0.78 and 0.84 respectively, meaning that 78 girls in Chad and 84 girls in Pakistan are enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys. The situation is no better in higher education.

Gender imparity in income is also reflected in the Global Gender Gap Index 2020: the global average income of a woman is about $11,000 (in Purchasing Power Parity) while that of a man is $21,000. Citing OECD data from 2010-2019, the World Economic Forum says the differential in men’s median income and women’s median income is about 13.5 percent. The gap is wider in non-OECD countries.

Grant Thornton’s Women in Business 2020 report shows that the proportion of women in senior management roles globally reached the highest of 29 percent in 2019. It is not that women’s share in managerial leadership is any better in developed countries. The same report shows the percentage of women in senior management was 38 in Africa, 35 in East Europe, 33 in Latin America, 30 in the European Union, 29 in North America, and 27 in the Asia Pacific.

Life expectancies are different for babies born in different places. It is 85 years for one born in Japan, 70 years in Nepal, and 52 years in Afghanistan. It is not that all babies in a country or a region are born equal either. Take Fresno city in California, for example. In a southwest ZIP code of Fresno, life expectancy is 69 years. Six miles away, in a northern ZIP code of Fresno, life expectancy is 90 years.

Status of one’s language makes a significant impact on the economic performance of the speaker. In 2011, Tarun Jain of Indian School of Business—using the 1956 reorganization of Indian states on linguistic lines as a natural experiment to estimate the impact of speaking the majority language on educational and occupational outcomes— concluded that districts that spoke the majority language of the state during colonial times enjoy persistent economic benefits, as evidenced by higher educational achievement and employment in communication-intensive sectors. Such a scenario is self-evident when one applies for jobs in international institutions, national bodies or other attractive areas, which eventually leads to income gaps.

Race matters, too. A 2016 UN Report on the World Social Situation shows, in a majority of countries where data were available, the share of ethnic and racial minority workers in skilled—managerial, professional and technical—occupations is lower than that of workers in the majority or dominant ethnic group. Similarly, people living in rural, remote areas characterized by poor infrastructure and little access to off-farm work had poor job opportunities.

In countries like Nepal many elementary school-level brilliant students from poor socioeconomic backgrounds are lost on the way to higher education while poorly performing ones from well-off families are able to get higher education and take leadership positions in politics, influential institutions and business firms. More often than not, the ones from affluent and influential families and society find it easier to get established as celebrities.

Media report in positive light minute details of those born with silver spoons in their mouth. The poor are also reported, but it is done just to make the news sellable. Multinational companies make every penny of their profit by overcharging poor consumers and try to create an altruistic and philanthropic image by selectively supporting some advertizable persons and projects here and there with a fraction of their profits.

In short, there has been much talk about creation of an equitable society but implementation is weak. At present nowhere on earth are people born equal and treated equally. Better drop the insincere slogan of equality and practice an honest principle of doing no harm to fellow humans.

The author is a professor of pharmacy at Tribhuvan University

I can bet this is a typical family gathering scenario in Nepal: the men of the family on one side, drinking and debating why the current prime minister is a total failure. And then, there are women on the other side, discussing the children, their schools, the difficulty of budgeting and how the new helper is better than the previous one. I should definitely mention the kids—you will not be in the men’s or the women’s discussion group until you are married. Even if you are 30 and unmarried, you are still considered a kid in the family—who are either on their phones complaining to their friends why they did not want to be a part of this gathering because it is boring, or they will be busy making #cousinunite Tiktok.

Maybe I am stereotyping. But I have been part of these bewildering gatherings for years and one conversation never gets old. I know you all must be thinking, the ever loved and haunting “When are you getting married?” but no. Here I discuss the love for the discussion of health issues.

When I mention health issues, they do not, in closest proximity, include mental health. When it is family, we discuss only diabetes, blood pressure, thyroids, arthritis, gastritis (our national disease) and migraine, to name a few. There will be one uncle or aunty who is the yellow page for doctors. They will instantly recommend you to a doctor who will run a wand around you and fix everything. The same person will also be an expert at suggesting medicines and alternative hacks to deal with your health problems.

We take our health for granted until the issue is so severe that we might have to live with it for the rest of our lives or to go under the scissors. In both cases we are jeopardizing our future. Similarly, we do not have a culture of seeking help from an expert or having a mentor.

Mentor is a person who is specialized in a subject, and guides and motivates you in professional and personal life. A life coach or a wellness coach can also be a mentor for your personal growth. In recent days, the culture of seeking such expertized services is growing. While life coaches motivate you to keep your personal life running, professional mentors are also necessary for smooth and healthy career growth. In simple Nepali terminology, they are called Guru.

In my humble opinion, there is a slight difference between a teacher and a mentor, even though they are interconnected. A teacher is a person who will help you acquire knowledge whereas a mentor will guide you to use and incorporate that knowledge into practice. A mentor will not exactly teach you but s/he will keep you on your toes to use the knowledge.

When you have a stomach ache, you are advised to go to a gastroenterologist and not the expert uncle who might give you a random medicine and screw it up more. Similarly, it is a smart approach to find a mentor from the same field of work as yours and keep questioning and learning. Finding a mentor is not easy. A lot of times people might not even give you the attention and time that you need. It is extremely important to approach people with a clear intent and communication. You might work in the same firm, you might work for him/her, or it could be totally independent.

Another important criteria while choosing a mentor is that they have to be an expert in the field where you seek help. You cannot go to a clinker brick maker to learn how to stitch a pair of shoes. For that you need a cobbler. Having said that we need to find a mentor, there will be a time when you have to look for a replacement. There is always a limit on how much one person can share knowledge and mentor someone. In time, the gurus can change, with the changing needs of the disciples. And it is absolutely fine to keep moving.

If you ask me, my mother is my first teacher and mentor who still holds a major credit for the person I am today. I guess it is so for each one of us. Beside my mother, luckily, I found a life coach in my early 20s who has helped me with my outlook and approach to life. Even after two decades of pestering him, I still give him my social audits once in a while to get validation.

For my professional mentorship, each person who is from my field of work is my mentor. I learn as well as unlearn from their actions.

In “Changing Course: Nation over Notion – Abolition of Federalism by Restructuring and strengthening Local Bodies, Referendum on Secularism,” Rabindra Mishra, a journalist, writer, philanthropist, and now politician, offers an unabashed inside view into the minds of privileged Nepali society that is unnerved by the changes sweeping across the country.

Mishra’s paper has gained greater notoriety for its headline conclusions. But those are a distraction from the rest of the paper, which reflects nostalgically on the glory of yesterday’s authorities.

The monarchy, for instance, “never stooped so low to harm the self-respect of the country compared to the present stock of our political leaders.” “Secularism has led to further religious divisions,” he observes wistfully, while in the past, “Nepal had not faced such a situation despite being a Hindu nation.”    

Towards the end of the paper, Mishra invokes the analogy of the former US president, Donald Trump. “White Americans,” he remarks, “felt that their feelings were being ignored,” which Trump harnessed into a political movement.

Mishra doesn’t realize it (perhaps, a Freudian slip) but by that point in the paper, he is the Donald Trump of Nepal. Like Trump, Mishra seeks to harness the grievances of Nepal’s privileged class whose traditional sources of authority are being challenged by the new republican, federal, decentralized, and secular structure.  

Just as Trump did, Mishra attempts to show that Nepal is in a state of grave decline. He has noticed “clear signals of ongoing irreparable damage to Nepal's independence, integrity, sovereignty as well as ethnic, religious and cultural harmony in recent years.” Exactly what those may be, he doesn’t explain.

On religious harmony, for example, he highlights the fact that churches are popping up in rented apartments and that temples are not adequately conserved. For him, these are symbols of religious discord. But, perhaps, these symbols are nothing more than a reflection of the poor state of governance in a changing Nepal.  

Like Trump, Mishra peddles a narrative of decline based on a false sense of lost glory. He writes about religious groups (exactly who, remains unclear) “proselytizing through enticement or spreading bitterness and hatred in the society.”

The growing cases of religious conversion are a common refrain among leaders who claim to represent Hindus. Mishra joins the bandwagon, arguing that “proselytizing” is hurting “the sentiments of majority Hindus.” Where or how those “hurt” Hindus have expressed themselves, he doesn’t say. He has been hurt, that’s proof enough.

Mishra makes no effort to understand why those that are converting have chosen to do so, or why they are being “enticed.” For him, as with Nepal’s traditional authority, retaining the flock was more important than empowering individuals on all matters, including their choice of God.

Like Trump, Mishra weaves a contrived tale of misinformation and imaginary history on how foreign powers subverted Nepal’s own progress. The fall of the monarchy and the Maoist movement, he suggests, were engineered by the Indians. Western power pushed the ideas of federalism and secularism, he imagines.

Such interpretations of history resonate with many who benefitted from generations of privilege and access to authority. It is hard for them to understand why they are being held accountable for the actions of their forefathers, when they are now working just as hard and honestly as anyone else.

Mishra taps into their “grievance” with an alternative history. No, he offers, Nepalis in the past were poor but in harmony. Nepalis never wanted federalism or secularism; foreign powers forced it upon them. Like Trump, Mishra is showing us how to exploit grievances into a political movement.

Mishra’s paper echoes the voice of Nepal’s traditional central powers: you people, we know what is best for you, listen to us.

“If we do not speak about our national interest, who else will?” he asks, echoing that voice.

He says resolving discrimination “requires a long struggle.” Only those who have never been subjected to social injustice—i.e., the privileged—could suggest we wait for “a long struggle” to end discrimination. Those on the receiving end want justice now.

Mishra’s demands challenge the very foundations of Nepal’s constitution. Nevertheless, Nepal’s democracy must provide him space and protection to convert those demands into a political movement. As our republic, federal, decentralized, and secular constitution struggles to strike roots and yield dividends, Nepal enters its final battle between those that benefitted and those that were marginalized. Within a democracy, we may have an opportunity to get through the battle without bloodshed.   

[email protected]

Nepal and Bangladesh are two of South Asia’s closest friends and peace-loving neighbors, their ties made closer by recent high-level state visits. President of Bangladesh Abdul Hamid visited Nepal in 2019. Nepal’s President Bidya Devi Bhandari likewise visited Bangladesh in 2021 as a guest on the birth centenary of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Nepal recognized Bangladesh as a sovereign state in 1971 and bilateral relations solidified after Bangladesh established six trade routes with Nepal in 1976. Relations were further enriched by the visit of King Birendra of Nepal to Dhaka in 1986. The two countries are currently members of several forums, including the United Nations, the WTO, BIMSTEC and SAARC and both Nepal and Bangladesh are on the way out of the club of LDCs.

In 2019, 40,000 Bangladeshi tourists went to Nepal. At present, nearly 4,000-5,000 Nepali students are studying in medical colleges and universities in Bangladesh. After joining workplaces in Nepal, these doctors are prescribing medicines for Bangladeshi companies. As a result, a good market for Bangladeshi medicines has been created in Nepal and currently eight companies export medicines to Nepal. Unfortunately, lack of the desired SAFTA agreement is hurting their trade potential even as the two countries are moving towards a bilateral free trade agreement.

Nepal has a free trade agreement with India. It has also expressed its interest in signing a preferential trade agreement or PTA with Bangladesh to boost bilateral trade. Although talks on this started last year, Nepal is frustrated that the agreement has not been finalized. As Nepal is a close country, Bangladesh can easily import fruits, herbs and spices. On the other hand, Bangladesh’s entry into the Nepali market has multidimensional potential as Nepal currently imports 90 percent of the goods it uses.

Nepal has a population of 29 million and a GDP of nearly $30 billion. Nepalis are a very fancy nation. As a result, Nepal can be a good market for Bangladesh’s electronics, ceramics, garments, furniture and local clothing brands. The completion of the desired PTA will open new horizons in trade between the two countries; Bhutan-Bangladesh trade has doubled since the signing of the PTA between them. The Kathmandu Post quoted the country's foreign ministry as saying that Nepal had already sent a draft PTA to Bangladesh and now it is waiting for a response.

Power imports could open up another horizon in relations between the two countries. Nepal has the capacity to export about 42,000 MW of hydropower. Bangladesh, which is on the path of rapid industrialization, can import electricity from Nepal, and India too seems to be positive on this.

Bangladesh can export its apparels and fertilizers to Nepal. Some Nepali media outlets had reported that 52,000 metric tons of urea was imported from Bangladesh in July.

Tourism, Covid-19, counter-terrorism, microfinance, exchange of training expertise and education are some sectors in which Bangladesh and Nepal can collaborate. Bangladesh faces a refugee problem after the massive influx of Rohingya refugees into the country in 2017. Now Bangladesh wants to repatriate them to Myanmar. Nepal should support Bangladesh at all international fora to repatriate them peacefully. Such a gesture will not go unnoticed in Dhaka.

The shortest distance between Nepal and Bangladesh is only 22 kilometers, and the road distance from Banglabandha in Bangladesh to Kakarvita in Nepal is just 39 km. In this connection, railways could offer much-needed connectivity. Nepal wants to join the rail link from Rohanpur in Chapainawabganj, Bangladesh to Singabad in India. Kathmandu’s distance from this railway will be only 216 km. On the other hand, China is building a railway from Lhasa in Tibet to Khasa, a border town in Nepal, and Nepal wants to bring that railway to Kathmandu. As a result, if there is effort and desire, Bangladesh can even establish a rail link to China via Kathmandu.

At present Dhaka is connected to Kathmandu by air and Nepal wants to expand air connectivity to Sylhet and Chittagong. Another option would be linking Syedpur in Bangladesh and Bhadrapur airport in Nepal, which would be just a 15 minutes flight. For those who want to avoid the hassle of a road transit visa on a business or leisure trip, this sky connectivity will be a huge relief. Both the governments may withdraw international tariffs on this route, in which case potentially millions of Bangladeshis could visit Nepal in coming years.

Bangladesh could also help with the development of cricket in Nepal.

Many people think sending goods to Nepal is difficult but the task has been made much easier by the establishment of the Nepali warehouse at Banglabandha port. Bangladeshi products thus have great potential in Nepal and the private sector should be encouraged to join. In the end, again, the cooperation between the two countries will be useful in building a peaceful and prosperous South Asia.

The author is a Dhaka-based NGO worker and freelance writer