By Parmananda Pandey | Tikapur

 Setraj Budha’s family moved to Tikapur in Kailali, a district in the western plains, from the hill district of Achham, in 1964. Many from his village had migrated to Tikapur around the same time. Together, they cleared the forest and have been farming and living in the land ever since. Interestingly, none of them have land own­ership certificates.

Bhim Mahar lives and does farming in the same ward. His father Gagan Singh Mahar had migrated there from the hills. He had made the area his home after the District Forest Office, Kanchanpur, back in the mid-60s, gave migrants the go-ahead to “clear forest areas and settle”. Gagan Singh then built a house and raised his children there, but passed away without getting a land certificate.

Around 2,000 hectares of land in Ward 8 of Tikapur is officially not owned by anybody

Settlers in 80 percent of the land in Ward 8 of Tikapur are without a land certificate, even though they have been living there for years. Some have a certificate, but their land cannot be found in offi­cial records. Around 2,000 hectares of land in the ward is officially not owned by any­body.

“We made several efforts to solve this problem but to no avail,” says Ammar Bahadur Saud, a local, who does have a land ownership certificate, but his land is not found in official records.

Ward chair Dirgha Thakulla says, “Officials from the sur­vey department have visited us multiple times, and taken measurements thrice, but they are yet to issue certifi­cates.”

Lack of certificates greatly inconveniences the locals. For instance, they do not get subsidies from the agricul­ture ministry. “We have been unable to split or sell the land that we have had from our grandfather’s time. This has even led to family feuds,” says Sher Bahadur Budha, another local. Tikapur also shares a border with India and dis­putes over border issues erupt from time to time

‘Land ownership certificates for everyone within the next four years’

By Laxman Pokhrel | Butwal

 The federal government has expressed its commitment to provide land ownership cer­tificates within the next four years to all landless squatters living haphazardly in various urban settlements across the country. Minister for Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation Padma Aryal promised that the gov­ernment would give priority to squatters who own land but do not have certificates to prove ownership, and to those living in unmanaged settlements.

 On May 26, 464 land ownership certificates were distributed in Sainamaina municipality

She informed that the gov­ernment’s drive to distribute land ownership certificates has already started. It began on May 26 from Buddhanagar in Sainamaina municipality in Rupendehi district. On that day, as many as 464 land own­ership certificates were dis­tributed. Minister Aryal said the drive would be expanded to other districts as well and reiterated the government’s promise to solve the problem of landless squatters during its tenure.

 In a meeting with then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala a few weeks after the royal massacre on 1 June 2001, King Gyanendra had said, and I quote Koirala’s personal aide at the time Puranjan Acharya, “Mr. PM, people see you as a corrupt and unpopular leader.” This made Koirala furious, and he replied, “Your majesty, people also accuse you of stealing idols from temples.” This exchange shows the degree of animosity between King Gyanendra and PM Koirala following the royal massacre. Soon after he came back to the prime minister’s residence in Baluwatar from the palace, Koirala asked Acharya to find out the telephone numbers of some Maoist leaders, with whom he wanted to talk about overthrowing King Gyanendra.

Eighteen years ago, Nepal witnessed a horrible royal massacre, which observers say was the beginning of the end of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic. Many political leaders say the issue of republicanism came as a reaction to the massacre and subsequent political developments rather than as a principled position of the political parties.

For the first time in Nepal’s modern history, the 2001 royal massacre brought the monarchy’s weaknesses to the fore, and created confusion among ordinary citizens. King Gyanendra failed to establish cordial relations not only with PM Koirala but also with other political leaders.

The monarch started consolidating power, taking advantage of the unpopularity of the political parties which had been unable to curb corruption and the Maoist insurgency. The parties, on the other hand, were trying to stop the king from taking absolute power. Many political leaders and observers say it was the royal massacre that planted the seed of republicanism in the minds of the general people.

“If the royal massacre had not taken place, the events of 4 October 2002—when King Gyanendra sacked the democratically elected Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba—and of 1 February 2005—when the king imposed an emergency and took absolute power—could have been averted,” says Kamal Thapa, Chair of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, who at the time worked closely with the king. “But those steps by the king led the parliamentary parties and the Maoist rebels to sign the 12-point understanding that heralded a republican Nepal.”

A different peace deal?

Even before the massacre, when the Maoist rebels had intensified their violent activities across the country, King Birendra had requested political parties and the government to take the insurgency seriously. A few months before the massacre, King Birendra had sent an informal letter to the government, asking it to resolve the Maoist insurgency as soon as possible. At the same time, some royal family members were holding informal talks with the Maoists about initiating a peace process. Many political leaders say the royal massacre took place at a time when King Birendra was preparing to take decisive steps to resolve the Maoist insurgency.

Soon after the massacre, then second-in-command of the Maoist party, Baburam Bhattarai, wrote an op-ed in the Kantipur daily entitled, ‘Let’s not give legitimacy to the beneficiaries of the new Kot Massacre’, which praised King Birendra for having a liberal political ideology and for being a patriot. In that piece, Bhattarai also wrote of how King Birendra had refused to mobilize the army to suppress the Maoist movement and that various national and international forces were unhappy with his soft approach toward the rebels.

"If the royal massacre had not happened, there could have been a different peace deal"

Kamal Thapa

“If the royal massacre had not happened, there could have been a different peace deal,” says Thapa. The Maoists could have accepted a ‘ceremonial’ or ‘cultural’ king. But following the massacre, the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists agreed to get rid of the monarchy, which became easier because of Gyanendra’s unpopularity and the support from external forces, particularly India.

Before the royal massacre, discourse on the establishment of republicanism was virtually non-existent. Mainstream political parties used to instruct their cadres not to speak in favor of a republic. Only the Maoist rebels and some fringe communist parties talked about abolishing the monarchy. The massacre laid the groundwork for such a discourse among academics, politicians, media workers and the general public alike.

A large section of the public sees Gyanedra’s hand in the massacre—which is why his acceptability as a king plummeted. Although many Nepalis still have a soft corner for the slain King Birendra, public respect for the monarchy as an institution plunged after the massacre.

Missing debate

“A separate peace deal between the palace and the Maoists was a possibility, but minimizing the role of the parliamentary parties was not,” says Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa. “The royal massacre served as a decisive moment for the establishment of republicanism in Nepal, because people did not like the idea of Gyanendra continuing the tradition of monarchy,” says Thapa, who became vocal about a republic soon after the massacre. For this, Thapa was publicly criticized by party President Koirala. “Contrary to general perception, I don’t think the Maoist revolt or the 2006 people’s movement laid the foundation for a republic. Rather it was the 2001 palace massacre that did so. There hasn’t been enough discussion about the impact of the massacre on the establishment of a republic in Nepal.”

Soon after the massacre, an NC team led by senior leader Narahari Acharya launched a nation-wide campaign to swing public opinion in favor of republicanism and federalism. NC President Girija Prasad Koirala had strongly objected to the campaign, saying that it went against the party line.

“We were even barred from making speeches. In a real sense, the royal massacre sparked the debate on republicanism,” recalls NC leader Madhu Acharya, a participant of that campaign. “Had it not been for the massacre, I do not think Nepal would have been a republic today. King Gyanedra committed a series of blunders, which further served to create an environment for a republic,” he adds.

Wither investigation?

Around the massacre’s anniversary, political leaders pledge to launch a proper investigation and make the truth public. Many believe such an investigation remains relevant. Former Speaker Taranath Ranabhat, who was a member of the probe committee formed under the leadership of then Chief Justice Kedar Nath Upadhayay soon after the massacre, says a deeper investigation into the palace carnage is necessary.

His probe committee had concluded that Prince Dipendra had murdered his entire family in an intoxicated stupor, but many doubt its veracity.

“The massacre has had negative social repercussions. It made our country weak. Its long-term impact is even bigger than that of the Maoist revolt,” says Ranabhat. “After the reconstruction of infrastructure, people could gradually forget the insurgency, but the wounds of the royal massacre may never heal. It is never too late to seriously investigate the palace massacre, but subsequent governments have not been serious,” says Ranabhat.

But wasn’t that the job of his probe team? “Our job at the time was to undertake an on-the-spot investigation to determine how exactly the event unfolded. We were not mandated to investigate what caused the massacre,” he adds.

It’s been 18 years since the massacre, but it remains a mystery as to why it happened. The country has undergone massive political changes in these years—changes that the massacre influenced, if only indirectly. Many books have been written on it, yet none has been able to convince the skeptical public. Less in doubt are the momentous repercussions of the massacre on the country’s political course.

 Sensing a possible gang-up of senior leaders against him, Prime Minister and co-chairman of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) KP Oli has of late adopted a policy of placating both senior leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal.Besides Dahal and Nepal, other senior leaders Jhala Nath Khanal, Bam Dev Gautam and Narayan Kaji Shrestha are also dissatisfied with what they see as Oli’s monopoly in the party and the government. These four leaders are coming closer to check that monopoly. Though there has been progress in forming intra-party structures and picking leadership of the party’s sister organizations, Oli’s monopoly, his governance failure and the question of the future leadership of the party and the government remain contentious.

On Jan 25, when Oli was in Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum summit, Nepal, Dahal, Gautam and Shrestha had met to discuss various issues related to the functioning of the party and the government. Oli projected this meeting as a ploy to remove him from power. Now, the same four leaders are trying to mount a collective challenge against Oli’s monopoly. PM Oli of course feels this undercurrent of discontent and has reached out separately to Nepal and Dahal, each of whom has strong command in the party. “PM Oli has started reaching out to senior leaders individually in order to foil a possible alliance against him,” says a NCP leader on condition of anonymity.

Soon after Nepal returned from the second Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) forum in Beijing, Oli had a one-on-one with him for over four hours on a range of issues related to party unification. Such a long meeting was the first of its kind following the unification of two communist parties in 2018. The two leaders discussed the ups and downs in their relationship, mainly after party unification, and agreed to take measures to keep their relations cordial. On internal power-sharing, Shrestha, Gautam and Khanal support leader Nepal in his bargaining with Oli.

There is wider dissatisfaction as well. Says a former Maoist leader who now occupies a senior position in the NCP: “We are barred from speaking in party meetings and instructed not to speak even in the parliament. This is a serious issue.”

"PM Oli has started reaching out to senior leaders individually in order to thwart a possible alliance against him"

An NCP leader

Don’t rock the boat

To clear the air of suspicion, Oli and Dahal are meeting on a regular basis. But that does not mean everything is hunky-dory between them. Perhaps Dahal is aware that Oli is hedging his bets. “As part of his appeasement policy, Oli is assuring support to both Nepal and Dahal as they bid for party chairmanship in the general convention,” as another NCP leader put it. However, mistrust between the two leaders is mounting.

When PM Oli was in Vietnam, Speaker of the federal parliament Krishna Bahadur Mahara, who is close to Dahal, directed the parliament secretariat to remove ‘unparliamentary’ remarks made by the PM before his foreign trip. Leaders close to Oli saw this as a ploy to remove him.

Dahal’s soft approach to main opposition Nepali Congress is also a bone of contention. In recent weeks, in public forums as well as in the parliament, Dahal has been highlighting the need for collaboration between the government and the opposition, while Oli has been strongly criticizing opposition leaders.

Whoever secures Oli’s support is likely to win party chairmanship after Oli gives up the post during the next General Convention. He has reportedly intimated to both Nepal and Dahal that due to his poor health he will not stand for party chairperson again.

Oli is thus using the general convention as a bargaining chip to perpetuate his stronghold in both the party and the government. The recent finalization of district chairs and secretaries had helped bridge the gap between Oli and Nepal.

Bamdev Gautam in particular feels cornered. First, he claims he lost the parliamentary election from his Bardiya-1 constituency in 2017 due to the betrayal of party leaders close to Oli. He had lost to Sanjay Kumar Gautam of the Nepali Congress by 753 votes even though he represented the strong UML-Maoist alliance. Now, Bamdev Gautam is in constant touch with Dahal, Nepal and Shrestha.

Last year, co-chair Prachanda had floated a proposal to get Gautam elected to the federal parliament by asking lawmaker Ram Bir Manandhar, elected from Kathmandu-7, to resign. Oli, however, rejected Dahal’s proposal, which further widened his rift with Gautam. Even before party unification, Oli used to criticize Gautam as being unnecessarily close to the Maoist party. Of late, hinting at Oli, Gautam has been speaking of systematic efforts at ending his political career.

No presidential pardon

Following the three-tier elections, Jhalanath Khanal had claimed the post of the country’s president in 2018. Oli opposed it, while Madhav Kumar Nepal stood neither in favor nor against Khanal’s candidacy. Of late, he is leaning toward the Nepal camp. But Khanal, a former prime minister, does not have much hold on the party organization, where power is shared between Oli, Nepal and Dahal.

Another senior leader Narayan Kaji Shrestha has also been criticizing the federal government’s working style. Last August, he resigned as party spokesperson following disagreements with PM Oli over the demands of Dr Govinda KC. Later, Dahal and Oli urged him to continue as spokesperson. Nepal and Shrestha are on the same page on several issues; they had a cordial relationship even before the unification. “Some of my ideas related to party- and government-functioning remain unaddressed,” says Shrestha, who has been urging top leaders not to engage in factional politics.

Again, from the outside, Dahal and Oli seem to have a cordial relationship. But the rift between them is widening, especially over federalism. Dahal is displeased with the centralization of power and resources under PM Oli’s watch.

Maoist leaders meanwhile complain of Oli’s interference in ministries led by former Maoist leaders. A few months ago, the Home Ministry had come up with a proposal to regulate NGOs but the PM got the Home Secretary to halt it. Recently, political appointments in the Alternative Energy Promotion Center, which falls under the Ministry of Energy under Barsha Man Pun, became a bone of contention. Oli rejected Dahal’s recommendation and made one himself. Dahal and Oli also differ on issues related to transitional justice and how they view the Maoist insurgency.

The former Maoist leaders want the ‘people’s war’ recognized in the official party charter. Yet the former UML leaders, and particularly those close to Oli, now say there should be no deviation from the UML line of ‘people’s multiparty democracy’. This has been another source of the Oli-Dahal rift.

The power tussle within the NCP is likely to grow as the General Convention draws closer. While other senior leaders want to hold the General Convention as soon as possible, Oli is not in the mood. When the party was united a year ago, the convention was slated to be held within two years. But it is difficult, as the central level convention cannot take place before the local and provincial ones.

Shifting sands

Dahal wants to hold the convention soon because next year Oli will complete his two and half years as prime minister—when, as per an agreement, Oli has to hand over either the party’s leadership or the prime minister’s post to Dahal.

“We will think of the General Convention only after we settle organizational issues,” says spokesperson Shrestha. But speaking at a program on May 6, Dahal said the party leadership was obliged to hold the General Convention in the next seven to eight months. This means Dahal wants to hold the convention within one year to ensure he gets either the party chairmanship or the prime ministership.

What cannot be ruled out either is an agreement between Nepal and Dahal over party chairmanship and prime ministership by sidelining Oli completely. If Dahal and Nepal come together, Oli will be in a minority both in the parliament and in party structures. Of the three clear factions led by Dahal, Oli and Nepal, Dahal has greater numbers than does either Oli or Nepal. Sources say if Oli continues with his monopoly and refuses to hand over power even after a year, other senior leaders will start ganging up against him.

“I see the possibility of big changes in internal alliances. Dahal, Nepal, Khanal and Gautam have all suffered at Oli’s hands,” said political analyst Shyam Shrestha in a recent interview with APEX. “If these four come together, there would be a change in power balance in favor of this alliance.”

Despite some differences over the formation of intra-party structures and sister organizations, the disgruntled factions agree on the need for an early General Convention. Otherwise Oli could indefinitely extend his tenure as he has vowed to quit only after the convention.

According to party insiders, Dahal knows Oli won’t easily transfer power to him as per the gentlemen’s agreement. As such he has already started reaching out to leaders who are unhappy with Oli. The power tussle inside the ruling party is set to escalate.

 It is not easy to take care of cancer patients. The task becomes harder still when these patients are little kids. Yet one non-profit, the Loving Heart Daycare Center, has taken up this Herculean task. The center located at Imadol, Lalitpur is the first and the only day nursery in Nepal specializing in taking care of children with cancer. Founder Samir Shrestha says the center is perpetually short of money. As such it has been able to open its doors only twice a week. Rents for two months are due. The search for a bigger, institutional donor has proven elusive. Still, at present, the center provides free service to 18 children aged 6-17.

There is still no complete cure of cancer, a group of diseases that are a leading cause of death around the world. Accurate data on cancer mor­tality, especially among children, are unavailable in Nepal. The WHO esti­mates that globally around 300,000 children, aged 19 years or below, are diagnosed with cancer each year.

“According to our estimates, the number of cancer patients in Nepal is increasing by 30,000-35,000 every year. Among them, 30 percent are children,” says Rudra Lal Kadari­ya, a member of the Cancer Council Nepal which is also associated with the Childhood Cancer Internation­al—an umbrella body of childhood cancer grassroots and national par­ents organizations.

Kadariya adds that cancer mor­tality rate is high in Nepal as most patients, especially children, are diagnosed only in the last stages.

Because of lack of awareness and high costs, regular screening is uncommon. In the case of children, leukemia is considered the most common non-preventable cancer, followed by brain and spinal cord tumors, neuroblastoma, retinoblas­toma and bone cancer. Although children are more likely to be cured, the trauma of having to go through rigorous medical procedures can cause the family great suffering.

The stigma associated with can­cer is also devastating, not only for the patients, but for their families and friends as well. Nepal lacks can­cer awareness on many levels and the healthcare system is not well-equipped to diagnose and treat most patients.

“In an underdeveloped coun­try like Nepal, cancer is not only a health problem, but also a socio-eco­nomic and psycho-social one,” says Shrestha.

Fighting spirits, loving hearts

 On the ground floor of a two-and-a-half-story house in Imadol, Lalitpur, 12-year-old Govinda Mahara from Siraha and 15-year-old Lokraj Rokahi from Jumla are lost in their art. They are busy drawing animals and different shapes on what appear to be greeting cards. “I love drawing, painting and making greeting cards. What I don’t like is, going to the hospital,” says Mahara, who has been visiting the center for the past three months. “But who likes going to the hospital, right?” But his buddy Rokahi says he does not mind going to the hospital, if only to ask the doctor “what I should and should not do.”

They have to visit the hospital regularly, as both of them suffer from leukemia, a kind of blood cancer. Yet what they really love is to come to the Imadol-based Loving Heart Daycare Center, the first and the only day nursery of its kind in the country specializing in taking care of children with cancer. Children like Mahara and Rokahi have adorned the light green walls of the two rooms allocated for children’s recreational activities with their arts and crafts, and littered the soft grey carpet with pretty dollhouses, toy cars, white unicorns, a ukulele, stuffed animals, and paints and pencils.

Most children registered at the daycare—and there are 18 of them, aged 6 to 17—do not know what ails them. Nor are they aware that their caretakers have been short on the Rs 18,000 monthly rent for two months and that their next meal is subject to donations from good Samaritans.

“We opened the daycare center almost eight months ago and we have been running it with whatever donations we get,” says Samir Shrestha, the founder of the center. “But the struggle to keep the daycare running without a big donor is enormous.”

Twice a week

The free daycare center for children with cancer provides them with psycho-social support, counselling, healthcare training,

 skill-building exercises, nutritional food as well as fun activities like birthday parties. Unfortunately, for lack of funds, Loving Heart is open only twice a week, says Shrestha. (The greeting cards Mahara and Rokahi were making will be sold to raise funds.)

“With this daycare, we’re not only helping the children but their parents as well. Life can be difficult for a family that has a child with cancer,” says Shrestha. “Ensuring the children’s physical and mental wellbeing can be a burden, especially for middle and low-income families,” adds Shrestha, who has been working voluntarily with children with cancer since 2005. For the families that are confused and distressed by the suffering of their children, the daycare provides a temporary shelter. Parents can leave their children for the day and rest assured that they are properly taken care of.

“We have to make sure that our surroundings are thoroughly clean because our kids are more vulnerable to infections,” Shrestha says. “There is also the need to protect them from pity or condescension from others. Our children don’t like strangers coming in and taking pity on them.”

In 2006, together with a group of like-minded friends, Shrestha had registered the Dirghajeevi Voluntary Group, under which the Loving Heart Day Care functions. They were actively involved in the care and support of children at the cancer ward of Kanti Hospital until 2015, when certain changes in policy and management forced them to stop volunteering there. Then came the idea of opening their own daycare center.

 Most children registered at the daycare—and there are 18 of them, aged 6 to 17—do not know what ails them

Students and survivors

“It was not easy to begin with,” Shrestha says. “No one wanted to rent out a place to us initially, fearing that cancer is a communicable disease.” The other problem was finding funds to operate the daycare, Shrestha informs. Although they have received donations from foreign individuals and agencies, funding has not been substantial or consistent. They expect support from the local communities to make the non-profit organization sustainable.

The volunteers at Loving Heart have been students and survivors of cancer who want to contribute to improving the children’s lives. Sandhya Ghorsaini, a 16-year-old student from Bhaktapur, is one such survivor and volunteer. Ghorsaini was also diagnosed with leukemia at a tender age of three. She was undergoing treatment at Kanti Hospital when Shrestha met her. They instantly bonded. “I like spending time with the children and feel privileged that I can bring small changes in their lives,” says Ghorsaini, who took her SEE exams this year. “I want to continue studying and become a doctor.”

With part-time volunteers and silent partners, it is up to Shrestha to commit all his time for the organization. While he gets help from his wife Sharmila, an aspiring painter, Shrestha runs the Loving Heart Daycare pretty much on his own. With no other income than what the organization manages to pay him, Shrestha’s livelihood depends on donations and charity—so much so that he does not want to admit his two-and-half-year-old son Samarth to a play school. “I will enroll him straight into a regular school,” he says, “The play school fees are exorbitant. I cannot afford them. I will homeschool him instead.”  

 Chitwan, cycle and cancer

 With a life dedicated to help­ing children and families in need, Samir Shrestha, 34, has a tragic story of his own. Here he chronicles his story in his own words: I was 12 when I lost my father in a motorbike accident. We were a well-to-do family in Chitwan but the sudden demise of my father changed that. I managed to com­plete my SLC from Chitwan and then came to Kathmandu to live with my uncle. My basic needs were met, but it was never like having my own father around. My uncle got me a job at his friend’s. Back then, on my way to work and back, I used to notice a number of street children and orphans, some picking garbage and others working as helpers in Safa Tempos.

I compared their lives to mine and realized that even though I came from a fairly wealthy family with people there to take care of me, my life was not as easy as when I had my father around. These street children—some orphans, some runaways and some discard­ed by their families—led more dif­ficult lives than I did. So I wanted to do something for them.

But I was really young and didn’t know how I could help them. Hav­ing grown up in the Tarai, I did know how to cycle though. So I decided to tour the SAARC coun­tries on my bicycle to raise aware­ness and funds for Kathmandu’s street children. I was inspired by Nepali cyclist Puskar Shah, who was on a world tour at the time. I got a chance to meet him. With his encouragement and my determi­nation, I started cycling in 2004, at the height of the Maoist insur­gency. I first toured Nepal and then India and Bangladesh. But I was forced to stop owing to political and security issues.

Then, in 2005, I saw an adver­tisement asking for volunteers at the cancer ward of Kanti Children’s Hospital. I joined the team and that became a life-changing moment for me. I realized that while there were hundreds of organizations working for street children, there wasn’t any support system for chil­dren with cancer. Since then, my whole life has been dedicated to helping them.