Submit your Article

In general terms, insurance is a contract whereby the insurance company pays compensation to its policyholders or their kin in case of occurrence of any eventuality mentioned in the insurance contract in consideration for the receipt of a premium. Insurance covers diverse subjects like a person's life, health, wealth etc. Health as a subject of insurance has emerged as one of the most important topics both in the health and insurance sectors these days. Many developed and developing countries use health insurance as a public health financing plan. Health insurance in fact has been an important tool for achieving the public welfare objective of a state. Both the insurance and health domains have multifaceted characteristics with public-centric nature. There are chances of coherence between these two sectors with mutual leveraging effect as well as some level of synergy. The concept of insurance seems to be younger than the concept of healthcare. Whereas the concept of social health plan is one of the late-emerged ideas packaged with two verticals of health and insurance together. This amalgamation concept emerged to cater to the need of social developments, rising health facility cost and increasing public awareness towards a healthy life. When it comes to healthcare, the sector in itself is a multi-disciplinary one with a big ecosystem including versatility of stakeholders requiring multiple regulators. Probably, the health domain is the only sector having multiples of regulators for any single domain. Let’s think of aviation as one of the bigger industries where there is only one regulator. Likewise, the financial sector, which is equally or even more crucial and larger, has got only one regulatory body. The area which we are talking about—insurance—is also having a single regulator. This whole ground of discussion is reflecting the size and wider dynamics of the health sector. Against this backdrop, the question arises: “Can we fit insurance into health or does health deserve to accept insurance?” The shortest answer is yes. The length of the answer can be stretched up to making a series of books. Many a time, we are pinched and pricked by a common question regarding the above-mentioned importance of insurance in the healthcare domain. Then why is Nepal not practicing health insurance in full-swing? Per se, Nepal is one of the Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs). By default, we will be able to taste the development later than any other developed country. Nevertheless, we have been practicing it for a long time in the case of road traffic accidents, providing health services to foreigners and some range of employee health benefits. It won’t be an overstatement to point that Nepal is now leapfrogging in this matter directly from the phase of crawling, something we were observing till four or five years back. Thanks to the government for introducing a national health insurance plan and including a health component in the Social Security Fund. Insurance pundits differ on this matter and they are not ready to accept these two big plans as an insurance scheme. In their viewpoint, this does not get reinsurance protection and it is including pre-existing disease conditions too with disregard to underwriting and other technical procedures. They take these two schemes as social schemes. The ambivalence and dilemma in this incorporation are in the fundamentals of these two domains. Health is regarded as a social domain whereas insurance is regarded as a financial and profit-oriented business. Despite this difference, there are enough grounds that these two sectors can be adhered to support each other, to thrive together and finally to keep end-users i.e. the general public in a more beneficial position. The basis of a golden handshake that these two domains can have are: They both are public-oriented businesses, both of them follow the theory of ‘beneficence’ and ‘non-maleficence’ and they both follow strict protocols. The healthcare industry, being a full-population touching industry, can provide a strong ride to the insurance sector in helping its expansion and increasing level of acceptance. Insurance, on the other hand, can support and promote the health sector in making it more responsible, more protocol-centric and well-documented. On top of that, they can synergize in introducing digitization showing fingers to each other, which ultimately benefits every stakeholder.  Last but not the least, they can create enhanced skills in the employee and introduce another area of service like a third-party administrator (TPA). Thus, insurance and health should be blended as two separate engines or better say co-rotator wheels. For getting this done, a series of workouts are required in the form of smart-work rather than in the form of hard-work. This is the call of all three ‘C’s, namely citizens, community and country. The writer is a CEO at Reliance Life Insurance

Nepali politics is gradually becoming synonymous to coalition politics and we are worse off for that. There is no single party in the country that has a realistic prospect of creating a government on its own.  It has been proven time and again that coalition governments are less pragmatic. We have all seen that coalition governments lead to political instability. A coalition government will invariably collapse and create the condition for re-election. It is unquestionably less effective, non-durable, and untrustworthy compared to a government constituted by a single party with defined principles and a distinct ideology. In case of a coalition government, the majority of ministers are nominated on the suggestion of parties. These candidates were never vetted for their competence and qualifications, and at the end of the day, it is the country that suffers. Another disadvantage of Nepal’s coalition government is horse-trading. Horse-trading in politics is often seen as unethical and unpleasant, and it should be prohibited. It is claimed that horse-trading occurs in order to influence a no-confidence vote. True, consolidation of democracy sometimes necessitates coalition politics. This, however, is not the case in Nepal. Ideally, formation of a new government should promote qualitative advancement, notably inter-ethnic harmony and social concord. And coalition governments, which share power between two or more political parties, should encourage and contribute to democratic consolidation. It should contribute to the improvement of democratic institutions. These objectives are not being met by coalition politics in Nepal. Most of the countries in South Asia have adopted the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, which was inherited from the British Raj in the Indian subcontinent. The single-member territorial electoral districts, where victory is guaranteed for the candidate who receives a majority of votes, have their own advantages and disadvantages. In a developing nation like Nepal, there must be a reasonable link between coalition politics and the advancement of democracy. Nepal has been heavily impacted by the subcontinent’s postcolonial political landscape. The underlying causes that have contributed to the establishment and growth of electoral and governing coalitions by South Asian political parties have had a significant influence on Nepal’s electoral system. The major political parties in Nepal have substantially adopted their democratic and public policy features. As in the rest of the region, the dynamics driving coalition politics as a recurrent character of government formation are prevalent in Nepal. Nonetheless, the question of whether the coalition administration has offered chances for ethnic minority representation to influence public policy making processes is relevant. Even if there is a slip-up in the electoral system, it cannot be removed by simply reforming it. The voters’ verdicts have determined the kind of the political candidates they prefer—the political parties mostly fail to apprehend the people’s sentiments, potential popular candidates, and election system and management experts. Party leaders have misused the election system to consolidate political power and financial strength since they do not select the right candidates. Nepotism and favoritism are rife in the candidate nomination process. It seems that the trend has become the core mode of politics in Nepal. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, politicians, election administrators and stakeholders have increased interest in elections. Everyone has started paying attention to the electoral reform process. In this context, it is natural to discuss what kind of electoral system is suitable for the land. There is no doubt that political stability is necessary for institutional development of democracy. However, what constitutes political stability has been the subject of intense research. Nobody disagrees with the reasons why our democratic system is not fruitful and sustainable, since almost all our elected governments in the past have been unstable. Not a single government since 1994 has been formed and led by a single party. And, as in other parts of the region, Nepali political leaders only concern themselves with winning elections, gaining political power and enhancing individual success in petty political ambitions that always lead to accumulation of wealth to ensure victory in the next election. They put aside all the common pro-people agendas and policies as long as they cling on to power. This scenario, therefore, convinces us that there is a real need for systemic reform in the electoral system in Nepal. Changing electoral systems is always risky. However, if we want the good of the country and the citizens as a whole, we must dare to change the system, improve the method and process. As the FPTP system failed to meet the requirements of relatively proportional inclusive representation, we adopted a mixed electoral system. Although some achievements have been achieved through this system, it has been seen and experienced that the representation has not been fully proportional, and the election has become very expensive and many distortions have been introduced in the use of the system. Not only this, there was not even a proportional representation of all classes, regions and groups in the elected bodies. So, changing our electoral system is an urgency of the time. The author is the PhD scholar at DIRD, TU  

Sometimes back a national media published a news regarding the unusual and hateful names of Dalit people in their citizenship documents. The news disclosed the naked reality of our society where the traditional caste system is deeply entrenched. It shows how the so-called upper caste people treat minorities in our society. The officials involved in the citizenship issuance process apparently had no qualms approving the certificates issued to the people whose names were clearly assigned as insults by the people from the so-called upper caste. These civil servants are no doubt academically qualified to hold their respective jobs, but they also lack morality. This is the sad reality of our bureaucracy, which is run by mindless pen-pushers. The Dalit community of Nepal is the most victimized and oppressed groups of our society. But our society by and large rather than voicing their solidarity with the Dalits, they resent reservation actions like reservations for minority groups. In a democratic system, certain policies are made to ensure participation and representation of marginalized and deprived groups. In the context of Nepal, Dalits are more deprived of their socio-political and human rights. Due to this discrimination, the presence of Dalits in mainstream politics and state bodies is very little. The very structure of Nepali society is responsible for depriving Dalits of their rights. The caste system doesn’t give proper space to Dalits in the social sphere. For example, most Dalit candidates in local level election didn’t get votes from non-Dalits, particularly for executive position. Take any local unit of Nepal and you will invariably find that its head is a non-Dalit. This indicates the poor view of our society towards Dalits. The majority of non-Dalits openly dismiss a candidate if he or she happens to be a Dalit or a member of other minority groups. They cannot imagine a person whom they have oppressed and insulted all their lives becoming an elected official. This anti-Dalit stance runs deep in our society. So ensure Dalit participation, the government has provided nine percent reservation facility for the community. It has done the same thing for women, indigenous groups, disabled, Madhesi, Muslim, etc. But for many non-Dalits, reservation for Dalit community is intolerable. They argue that the reservation for Dalits has reduced the opportunity for qualified non-Dalit people. If so then why is Nepal, which was ruled over by the so-called upper caste people for centuries, still underdeveloped? It is only the reservation policy for Dalits that irks the non-Dalits. They believe the Nepali society is free of caste discrimination and that the reservation facility for Dalits is unnecessary. Clearly, as non-Dalits, they have no idea what it is like to be a Dalit in Nepal. They certainly do not reflect on their own biases when they vote, when they hire workers and even when they make friends. They don’t know the pain and suffering faced by Dalits. They don’t know what it is to be ostracized and discriminated against all their lives. They don’t know the feeling of being told not to enter someone’s house or a temple. They don’t know the shame planted by society on the minds of Dalit children, who grow up to resent themselves when they grow up because they were born to the so-called lower caste family. Therefore, the nine percent reservation quota for Dalits is not enough to right all the wrongs they have gone through since ages. But the non-Dalits do not see this, as they have never put up with the humiliation of being a Dalit in Nepali society. There are many Dalits who don’t want reservation as long as the society guarantees equal treatment and respect to them. They say reservation facility can’t heal the wounds of caste discrimination. It can’t revive the lives of Navaraj BK and Sete Damai, who lost their lives on the account of being Dalits. Every non-Dalit should come to the terms to the fact that reservation policy is not a compensation for caste discrimination. It is just a gesture offered by the state in hopes of healing the Dalit trauma. To grow up in a hateful environment and compete with those who have been enjoying the structural dividend from ages is unfair to Dalits. Non-Dalits should realize this. It is easy to criticize or form half-baked opinions. But it takes a lot of introspection, historical understanding and moral courage to understand the pains of Dalits.

Under the shadows of the Himalayas, Nepal bears a myriad of rivers—snow-fed and spring-fed. They drain south into our Terai plains and the holy Ganges, India. Many of our rivers are home to a species of fish called the Himalayan Golden Mahseer (Tor putitora), Sahar in Nepali. Golden Mahseer is a migratory cold-water fish that inhabits our rivers like Sapta Koshi with its seven tributaries (Sun Koshi, Tamor, Dudh Koshi, Bhote Koshi, Arun, and Likhu), Karnali, Seti, Mahakali, Bheri, and Narayani. It spawns during monsoon floods (June-September). Redolent of the salmon that travels thousands of miles upstream to spawn, the Mahseer swims upriver to considerable heights (from 400 ft. to 2,500ft from mean sea level) to breed. After monsoon breeding, they leave the foothills and make a migratory run back to the colder climes of the upper reaches. Curiously, its entire life cycle seems on the run—migrating. Some 15 years ago, I took up fishing—and got hooked on it. I learned further about Golden Mahseer, the Himalayan freshwater gamefish, as time passed. Avid fishers claimed it was the toughest of the tough, the ferocious of the ferocious among the freshwater sport fish. They further cited that gamefish fought like cornered predators and exhibited such brute power and lightning speed no other freshwater fish (excluding salt or sea water) in the world could match. That sparked my curiosity; my passion for digging into this charismatic species became an obsession. The more I studied about this fish, my respect for it ballooned. For seven long years, my research on these species took me to a host of rivers stretching from the length and breadth of Nepal: from Arun, Tammar, Sun Koshi, and Tama Koshi in the east to Karnali, Trishuli, and Babai in the west. Only to learn the Himalayan Golden Mahseer number had dwindled, and the species had fallen under the IUCN Red List as encroached, threatened, and endangered.  Given its endangered status, responsible Mahseer anglers today practice catch-n-release: they make the prize catches, measure and weigh them, and then release them live into the river where they belong after posed photo sessions. Browsing through the pages of several books on Mahseer, I stumbled upon an amusing anecdote about how this fish won laurels worldwide. In the 1850s, during the British Raj in India (1858 to 1947), a young British officer commissioned to Assam Province, India, had a weakness for fishing—fixated on it in truth. After reporting for duty and being well-quartered, the fresher started hanging around with fellow officers in the officers' club to unwind in the evenings. One day, the conversation touched upon fishing in particular. The newcomer livened up. He pitched himself on his exploits of salmon fishing back home in England; he sounded a tad verbose, though. One officer asked: "Have you heard about Golden Mahseer?" When the officer let him on the native Mahseer fish, the fellow snapped back instead. "Mahseer? There's no match to the gallant salmon over freshwater fishing," he said and rambled on about salmon angling. The co-officers realized it'd be futile to argue with him. One day, the officer went fishing in a nearby river noted for Mahseer. After an hour, he finally got a bite—a huge 45-pounder Mahseer bit his bait. Whoa! Pandemonium broke out, followed by a fierce skirmish. After sweating it out for over an hour, he finally landed the prize fish. The Englishman, cut down to size and humbled by the unbridled fury of the Golden Mahseer, never talked about salmon among his fellow officers after that. Many incidents of smashed rods, mangled hooks, and broken lines are predictable if the angler fails to tackle a big Mahseer that shoots for the nearest rapid. Talk to a Mahseer buff, and he will never tire of relating his experience in one breath—the bite, the jerk, and the initial rush, which can be anything from 100 to 200 yards of the fishing line. Desperate, he races along the rocky bank to keep pace, fearing the reel might run out and his fishing line snaps. Leafing through the pages of history, Mahseer, for its notoriety, turned out to be a legend. It became the most sought-after gamefish and a hot topic for the wordsmiths. Books upon books, journals upon journals, dedicated themselves to this acclaimed species. The legendary hunter, naturalist, and writer (Man-eaters of Kumaon, 1944), Col. Jim Corbett, called it "the fish of my dreams" and dubbed it 'the Tiger of the Water.' Another celebrated author, Skene Dhu, christened it the 'Mighty Mahseer.' Tight lines. Watch the video my fisher friends recorded in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNBvX07eIqo