Submit your Article

Third-generation Nepali Congress (NC) leaders often complain the party leadership disregards them on key issues.

First-generation leaders like BP Koirala, Ganeshman Singh, and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai founded the party back in 1950. Then, following the 1990 political changes, second-generation leaders like Sher Bahadur Deuba, Ram Chandra Poudel, and Bimalendra Nidhi came to the fore. Now, a new generation of leaders in the form of Gagan Thapa, Biswoprakash Sharma, and Pradeep Poudel are on the verge of taking up leadership positions.

These third-generation ‘youth’ leaders complain about their poor representation in policy-making, as the much older second-generation leaders continue to largely control the party. This has created a gulf between the country’s youth population and the Nepali Congress. 

Among the party’s eight office-bearers, no one belongs to the youth generation. The office-bearer body is the party’s powerful core, mandated to make quick decisions on vital national and party issues. 

Of late, there have been signs of change. Many youth leaders are coming out with strong voices on issues related to the party and national politics, and the party leadership is compelled to heed. Gagan Thapa’s impressive presence in the parliament is a case in point. People have started saying that Thapa is the sole threat to the government from the main opposition. Not only the parliament, Thapa’s influence in the party’s overall decision-making is also increasing. Besides Thapa, other youth leaders are emerging, too, but more as a result of their personal capacities rather than a system that promotes generational transfer of power.

Where’s the plan?

According to political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam, Congressi youth leaders have become more vocal and the party leadership has been forced to listen. But he reckons the youth leaders would help their own cause if they could come up with a clear vision on key national issues. “For example, what is the vision of NC youth leaders on Nepal-India relations in the changed context?” Gautam asks.  

He says the youth leaders need to have a clear ideological foundation for the party’s reformation. “Take the lack of ideological clarity in the party when it was forced to embrace federalism and republicanism,” he adds. Gautam himself was part of a Ganatrantrik Abhiyan (republican campaign), along with NC leaders Nara Hari Acharya, Gagan Thapa, Madhu Acharya, and political analyst Krishna Khanal. They filled the ideological vacuum and helped the party’s ideological shift from constitutional monarchy to republic. 

“The campaign also established many youth leaders in national politics. It shows that sustained youth campaign can bring meaningful changes in the party and the youths can find space within it,” Gautam says. 

Perhaps social media is making all the difference these days. Many youth leaders are active on social media, which allows them to gauge public opinion on national issues. They then press the party leadership to listen to the people. 

Recently, the party was obliged to go with public sentiment that favored changing the national map through the parliament. Some senior Congress leaders wanted to buy time, but youth leaders pressed them to immediately summon the Central Working Committee. There were some differences among the office-bearers, but they had to eventually yield to the youth pressure, and the CWC unanimously decided to vote in favor of endorsement of the new national map. 

Still, rues Pradeep Poudel, a noted youth leader, the party’s senior leaders listen to them only when the party is in opposition. “Perhaps the party leadership has started listening to us due to growing demand, both in and outside the party, that Congress needs to mend its ways,” he adds. “We are thus currently involved in party decision-making. But the real test of party leadership will come when Nepali Congress gets to power.” Despite some improvement, “the syndicate of old leaders continues to dominate decision-making,” Poudel concludes.  

Youth leaders have been vocal on the issue of corruption during the pandemic. They have proposed a nationwide campaign against corruption, but the party president is not interested. According to Dhan Raj Gurung, another prominent youth leader, the party submitted a memo to the government demanding a probe into the purchase of medical supplies, only after youth leaders pressed for it. “Corruption is one area where party leadership is listening to us. Still there are many pressing issues where they just ignore us,” Gurung says. 

Will happen, take time

The people, meanwhile, expect mainstream parties to actively fight corruption. Amid Covid-19 crisis, many apolitical young people came to the streets protesting the government’s poor handling of Covid-19 crisis. “We have to accept that the party’s involvement in such protests has weakened,” says Poudel. 

There are growing voices in the party that the leadership should be handed over to the next generation at the party’s general convention slated for April next year. Yet no third-generation leader is likely to be party president in the convention. The highest a young leader could go would be general secretary, the third in hierarchy after president and vice-president.  

There is a general consensus that there should be more and more third-generation leaders in party leadership if Congress is to effectively fight the consolidated communist juggernaut. But for the party to be actually led by a third-generation leader, perhaps the country will have to wait for some more time.

On June 18, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali took part in a high-level video conference on the Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), chaired by Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Addressing the conference, Gyawali appreciated the role of the BRI in “high-quality development in the partner countries” and underscored the importance of the new initiative of “Health Silk Road under the BRI.”

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Health Silk Road hopes to facilitate trade in anti-epidemic medical supplies and cooperation in fighting infectious diseases, including sharing experiences and expertise. By organizing the conference, China wanted to convey a message that Covid-19 has not affected the BRI, but instead pushed the country toward new initiatives like the Health Silk Road.

Nepali politicians continue to express their full support for the BRI. Speaking at an interaction between the Nepal Communist Party and its Chinese counterpart, NCP co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal expressed his belief that “the BRI can bring in opportunities for common development... We can develop a community of shared destiny across the Himalayas by pursuing development path under the theme of trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network.”

But the BRI’s actual progress in Nepal has been sluggish. Though Nepal signed the BRI framework in 2017, it is yet to select specific projects under it and the Covid-19 crisis is likely to result in further delays. Before the corona outbreak, discussions were underway on specific projects and investment modalities. As talks had reached the level investment modality, discussing it over a video conference is not an option.

Chinese officials have said that the pandemic has affected over 20 percent BRI projects in Asia, Europe and beyond. According to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, another 30-40 percent of the projects have been somewhat affected. “As the situation improves we have confidence that the projects will come back and the execution of them will speed up,” said Wang Xiaolong, director-general of the ministry’s International Economic Affairs Department at a June 18 news briefing in Beijing.

Not just ongoing projects, the Covid-19 is likely to badly impact countries like Nepal that are yet to select specific BRI projects. The pandemic could mar the BRI projects in Nepal, whatever they are, for two reasons. First, due to its fragile economic condition, Nepal may not be in a position to take loans from China to finance the projects.

In this context, Nepal can ask China to give grants instead of loans. Given the growing competition among big powers and fast-changing geopolitics, China might just agree, even though China normally gives little in grants under the BRI. “In our current state of economic fragility, we should request China to provide grants on BRI projects. There are high chances that it could agree,” says Dr. Rupak Sapkota, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Foreign Affairs. According to him, China has given Nepal high priority during the pandemic and it will continue to do so in the future. “China is mindful that the economic condition of BRI recipient countries should remain vibrant and that the BRI should cause them no added pain,” he adds.

Second, China may itself not be in a position to give either loan or grants. But Sapkota differs. He says China’s economy has not suffered a lot from the pandemic, and it will as such continue to push the BRI projects in Nepal.

Initially, Nepal had selected 39 projects but following Chinese request it whittled the number down to nine. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, discussions were underway on project prioritization. “Had there been no corona, we could have had final agreements on some projects. We could still see some agreements in the days ahead,” says Sapkota.

China is also changing its approach to the financing of the BRI projects. In the initial days, it provided loans to several countries without considering their payback capacity, which created debt problems in some countries. Now, China is providing loans only after close examination of economic viability of such countries.

Dr. Upendra Gautam, general secretary of Nepal-China Study Centre, says the pandemic obviously affects China’s ongoing and future projects in Nepal under the BRI. Gautam, however, believes Nepal needs to come up with comprehensive plans clearly outlining its priority development projects.

“There could be resource constraints but if we come up with a clear vision and priority, I expect there to be no resource constraints on the BRI projects,” he says. Gautam says the start of the Health Silk Road is in keeping with the needs of the time and Nepal should tap into it to effectively deal with its corona crisis.

Despite growing domestic pressures on the two governments to settle outstanding border issues through diplomatic means, Nepal-India talks are unlikely anytime soon.

In Nepal, both ruling and opposition party leaders have been urging Prime Minister KP Oli to use his diplomatic skills to bring back Nepali territories through negotiations with India. Similarly, there is growing domestic pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to talk with Nepal without delay. Ex-diplomats and opposition leaders in New Delhi are also criticizing Modi for ignoring Nepal’s talks offers. In a June 15 statement, senior Indian National Congress leader Karan Singh said: “Although the dispute in question is a long-standing one, it was, if I recall correctly, raised by Nepal in November last year. Surprisingly, we did not seem to take the matter seriously.”

According to the popular Indian portal aajtak.com, the Indian PM-led Cabinet Committee on Security, the highest body in India to decide on matters of national security, had recently concluded that it was meaningless to hold talks on Kalapani after Nepal’s constitution amendment. According to the same report, the meeting concluded that India would not accept the Nepal-India Eminent Persons Group (EPG) report, and that the ‘special ties’ with Nepal would be revised.  

“The chances of specific talks on the border are indeed slim,” says an ex-Indian ambassador to Nepal. “But there may yet be phone conversations between prime ministers or foreign ministers to give a message that bilateral ties are on track.”

As the two sides know resolution of the border dispute will take time, both Oli and Modi seem to be in a mood to ‘normalize’ bilateral relation via phone conversations. The goal is to ensure that the border issue will not have spillover effects in other areas of bilateral ties, according to a senior leader in the ruling Nepal Communist Party.

Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh had said on June 15 that it was still possible to settle border issues with Nepal, with which India shares ‘special ties,’ in a clear indication that India’s political leadership wants to keep talking to Kathmandu—if not on the border.

One story, two versions

India’s Ministry of External Affairs recently briefed its media that India had proposed foreign secretary-level talks just before the constitution amendment process started. “Our offer of talks as well as our response to their offer was positive. In fact, we offered foreign secretary-level phone call and also visits of the two foreign secretaries as recently as just before the tabling of the bill,” Indian government officials told the Indian media on June 15. Indian officials said the onus was on Kathmandu to create conducive atmosphere.

The Nepali side, however, says it has gotten no formal request for talks from India. According to sources in New Delhi, India had communicated through various informal channels that foreign secretary-level talks could be organized if Nepal postponed the constitution drafting process, but there was no official request for talks. The Nepali side understood this as no more than a ploy to stop constitutional amendment.

After the amendment, Nepal’s priority has been to initiate dialogue with India. Speaking to reporters after constitution amendment, PM Oli said talks with India would start soon.

“Dialogue is always our priority. We have been proposing foreign secretary-level talks since November last year but India has not responded,” says Rajan Bhattarai, PM Oli’s foreign affairs advisor.

After India came up with its new political map in November, Nepal twice sent diplomatic notes to India, offering foreign-secretary level talks. India did not respond positively. Foreign-Secretary level talks are the only mutually agreed mechanism to deal with border disputes.

India’s position on dialogue is inconsistent. India first said talks could be held once the Covid-19 crisis is over. It urged Nepali politicians to create a positive atmosphere. But in the latest statement issued on June 13, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said: “This artificial enlargement of claims is not based on historical fact or evidence and is not tenable. It is also violative of our current understanding to hold talks on outstanding boundary issues.”

Phony promises

During the April 10 phone conversation between PM Oli and PM Modi, the former had briefly broached the border issue, stating that the two countries needed to sit for dialogue without further ado. The next phone conversation between Oli and Modi was scheduled for May 18, the date Nepal’s cabinet endorsed the new political map including Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. “The scheduled phone conversation was canceled by the Indian side at the eleventh hour,” says a source close to PM Oli.

Nepali Ambassador in New Delhi Nilambar Acharya has been in constant touch with officials of India’s Ministry of External Affairs. He is also in personal contact with some ministers of Modi cabinet but he too has been unable to persuade them for border talks.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali has categorically said that the cartographic change inscribed in the Nepali charter is permanent. In its future dialogue with India, Nepal is preparing to present evidences and historic facts that show Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura belong to Nepal. The country’s bottom-line is the withdrawal of Indian troops from Kalapani.

In the coming days, PM Oli will be under pressure to convince India to withdraw Indian forces from Kalapani. All political parties, including main opposition Nepali Congress, have put the onus of border talks on PM Oli.

After Ladakh

At the same time, the military standoff between India and China over their disputed border in Ladakh is escalating. India says 20 of its army personnel died in a hand-to-hand clash with PLA personnel on the night of June 15. This has further negated the possibility of Nepal-India dialogue to settle Kalapani.

“Nepal may now find it difficult to raise its case strongly, especially as a section in India had already been blaming Nepal for raising border issues at the behest of China,” says Pramod Jaiswal, Research Director of Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement, a Kathmandu-based think tank. “India could adopt a rigid stand while negotiating at the moment, as Kalapani is of strategic importance to it during the conflict with China.”

Jaiswal says Nepal would be wise to remain silent on border issues for a while. “It can raise them again when things calm down,” he advises.

The proposed $500 million grant under the American Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact is close to its day of reckoning. As per the agreement, the compact will have to come into force after June 30. But the Nepali parliament is yet to endorse it owing to the differences in the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP).

For a long time, Prime Minister KP Oli has been trying to convince senior party leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Jhala Nath Khanal, Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Bhim Rawal on the need for its parliamentary approval. He hasn’t succeeded.

Finance Minister Yubaraj Khatiwada faced considerable heat from within his own party after he incorporated the MCC grant in the new budget before its parliamentary endorsement. Responding to lawmakers’ criticisms, Khatiwada said: “If we cancel the compact, it will affect our bilateral relation with America, as well as the larger climate of international assistance to Nepal.”

With divisions in the NCP running deep, the ruling party formed an intra-party panel to study the compact and make recommendations. The panel recommended that the MCC compact be adopted only after making changes. The prime minister is not in a position to flatly reject the recommendation of a panel set up by his own party’s central committee.

If Dahal, Khanal and Nepal do not support it, the chances of the compact’s endorsement are slim. “The MCC compact cannot move ahead without an agreement in the party. The PM should act as per party directives and decisions,” senior leader Khanal, who was also a member of the panel, had told media persons on June 9.

PM Oli fears that if the compact is forcefully tabled in parliament, the move could backfire, as many party lawmakers have threatened to vote against it. Likewise, in the nine-member NCP Secretariat, KP Oli is in a minatory, and a hard line on the compact could further alienate him. Oli had called a Secretariat meeting on June 9 to build consensus on the compact but it had to be cancelled at the last minute. Now, Oli is talking to top party leaders on individual basis to forge a consensus.

Dreaded September

Inside the party, Dahal’s role on the MCC is crucial. Of late, he has not spoken much on the MCC debate but he is of the view that the compact should not be passed without extensive discussions in the party. Speaker of lower federal House Agni Sapkota, who is close to Dahal, is also in favor of consensus in the party before it is tabled in the parliament. A leader close to Oli says the prime minister made a mistake by agreeing to form an intra-party panel on the compact.

Meanwhile, the June 30 deadline is fast approaching. There could be further discussions, but it is beyond the jurisdictions of MCC Nepal office to say what will happen after that. If the current deadline is missed, the two sides could set another deadline. But if the issue drags on beyond September-October, when the fiscal year of the US government ends, there could be a problem. If the compact is not endorsed before that, the American government could divert the money elsewhere.

The Millennium Challenge Account Nepal (MCA-Nepal), however, is still hopeful the current parliamentary session will endorse it. “There is still some time before the June 30 deadline so it would be too early to speak on what will happen if the deadline is missed,” says Khadga Bahadur Bisht, Executive Director of MCA-Nepal. Bisht hopes the compact will be a top government priority following parliamentary endorsement of the budget and the new Nepali map.

According to those in the know, the main concern right now is not the deadline but parliamentary endorsement. Prime Minister Oli has been assuring the Americans that the work will be done in the current parliament session. “If there is a guarantee that the current session will endorse the compact, we can discuss deadline extension. Similarly, some points of the agreement can be clarified in line with the suggestions of ruling party lawmakers,” says another MCA-Nepal source requesting anonymity.

According to the source, the Covid-19 pandemic could be used as an excuse to extend the June 30 deadline. But for this, “there has to be a prior agreement between the two sides”.

Say it’s different

The ruling party leaders who oppose the compact fear it is a part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. Similarly, they say some provisions in the pact place it above the Nepali law. Projects under the compact do not follow Nepal’s public procurement act, they allege.

Some senior American officials have said that the MCC is a part of the IPS, which in turn created suspicion that America was trying to drag Nepal into a ‘military alliance’. But there have also been statements refuting the MCC’s links to the strategy. A few weeks ago, Alice G. Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, had said that the MCC, established in 2004, has no relation to President Donald Trump’s vision of an open and free Indo-Pacific.

The American Embassy in Kathmandu refused to comment on the looming deadline. In an email communication, the embassy says, “We understand that the Government of Nepal is discussing ratification of the MCC Compact.  To respect the processes of the government of Nepal, we have no comment at this time. The US looks forward to the Government of Nepal ratifying the compact as signed, so that critical electricity and road infrastructure assets can be built for the benefit of the people of Nepal.

Along with a powerful NCP faction, 10 other fringe communist parties are also warning the government not to endorse the MCC compact for the same reason. They think endorsement would compromise Nepali sovereignty and violate Nepal’s non-alignment policy.

There are also media reports of the Chinese advising the Oli government against endorsing the compact, as it could drive a wedge in the ruling party and further weaken Oli. In public, China has maintained that it is completely up to the sovereign government of Nepal to decide.