One conspiracy theory refuses to die. Krishna Bahadur Mahara was supposedly removed from the speaker’s post after he refused to start the process of the mandatory parliamentary ratification of the American MCC accord. The Maoist half of the ruling Nepal Communist Party strongly believes that the MCC is an integral component of the Indo-Pacific Strategy aimed solely at containing the dear northern neighbor’s rise. For his refusal to bow down before the ‘imperialists,’ Mahara had to lose not just his job but also his freedom.
Or so the theory goes. Frankly, I didn’t put much store on it. I still don’t. Sounds farfetched. But then knowledgeable sources keep alluding to it. And to the related issue of the deputy speaker Shiva Maya Tumbahamphe refusing to resign to clear the way for the election of new speaker and deputy speaker. They say this too is closely tied to the parliament’s need to ratify the MCC accord. PM Oli does not want another Maoist speaker as he or she could block the MCC again.
There seem to be two clear camps developing inside the ruling party. One old UML faction under the current prime minister, while still keen on closer ties with China, wants to preserve Nepal’s age-old relations with the US. But the old Maoist faction under Pushpa Kamal Dahal continues to be highly suspicious of the MCC.
Foreign powers have always had a disproportionate influence on Nepali politics. The current crop of top Nepali leaders think they have learned how to play off big powers to their political advantage. Oli used to be India’s point-man in Nepal before he espied an opportunity to ride an anti-India wave to power. Now he is much closer to China. Dahal orchestrated the decade-long insurgency from Indian soil, only to later denounce the ‘expansionists’. After he lost his PM’s post due to ‘Indian meddling’, he once again embarked on a (as yet unfinished) crusade to please the Indians. During the insurgency, the West-friendly Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba hoped to save his premiership by convincing the Americans to ditch their knee-jerk anti-Maoism. He didn’t succeed, but remains a trusted American friend. Thanks to Pradeep Giri, his ties with New Delhi aren’t bad either.
As the internal rift within the NCP deepens, foreign power centers will look to play through their Nepal proxies. Dahal wants to portray himself as the only true friend of China in the NCP. Oli wants to show that he is more than capable of maintaining the delicate balance between the great powers, even as he maintains his warm ties with Beijing. He recently deported 122 Chinese nationals after asking Nepal Police to drop charges against them. This won’t go unnoticed in Beijing. Again, Oli as government head faces different kinds of pressures to Dahal as co-chairman of the NCP. But one long-term trajectory is clear enough: whatever their current inclinations, each sees his future firmly tied to their ability to keep Beijing in good humor. For the Nepali communists, the pro-China nationalist card comes with an indefinite
validity period.

A society that restricts freedom of expression cannot be democratic. True, even in a democracy, you cannot say anything you want. Yet this bar is something set by freely interacting individuals. Whenever governments have tried to arbitrarily set limits on free speech, it has inevitably been for their political benefit, and not for the benefit of the larger society. For once you start setting these limits, it is hard to know where to stop. The federal government in Nepal is thus on a slippery slope.

A slew of bills now in the federal legislature sets a low bar on freedom of expression. If these bills are passed, just about anything written in news­papers or posted online may be deemed problematic, and the content-creator be made liable to the harshest of punishments: 3-5 years of jail or up to Rs 1.5 million in fines.

Under far more permissive laws, many Nepalis have already been arrested for their social media posts that in one way or other were critical of those in the government. There was no need for these new bills.

Federal upper house Nation­al Assembly member Prakash Panta says that with the help of new laws the government could directly interfere with people’s privacy. “Government agencies can even listen to [phone] con­versations between couples,” he cautions. Social media restric­tions could be especially prob­lematic for the young generation who like to freely express them­selves on digital platforms. Many of them may have no idea they are committing a crime. They are not amused. Says 20-year-old Prastuti Bhattarai: “Those in the government should serious­ly get a life instead of behaving like aunties of our community who gossip about things like who someone is talking to, what they are doing, and who are they roaming around with.”

With the proposed laws still in their formative stage and many of their likely targets potentially unaware of their restrictive pro­visions, the government may not face much of an opposition initially. But when people start realizing its true intent, there could be a harsh backlash.

Concerns grow as new bills tabled to curtail freedom of expression

Some provisions of the Nepal Special Service Bill allows the National Intelligence Department (NID) to intercept intercept phone calls, record videos, and track emails of ordinary citizens. As the NID is under the Prime Minister’s Office, such provisions are likely to be used against political opponents. More than that, it violates citizens’ privacy rights ensured by the constitution

But at least three bills that are being deliberated in the House of Representa­tives and the National Assembly of federal parliament clearly go against these consti­tutional provisions by making it difficult for both the media and the ordinary people to exercise the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

The fact that sections of the three laws in the making—the Information and Technology Bill, the Media Council Bill, and the Nepal Special Service Bill—con­tradict the country’s constitution has invited concerns and criticism from multiple quarters.

Some provisions of the Nepal Special Service Bill allows the National Intelli­gence Department (NID) to intercept phone calls, record videos, and track emails of ordinary citizens. As the NID is under the Prime Minister’s Office, such provisions are likely to be used against political opponents.

More than that, it violates citizens’ pri­vacy rights ensured by the constitution. Article 28 of the constitution says: “The privacy of any person, his or her resi­dence, property, document, data, corre­spondence and matters relating to his or her character shall, except in accordance with law, be inviolable.” If the new law is passed, government agencies will have sweeping powers to look into an individual’s document and data.

Timing and intent

When it comes to intercepting phone calls, a former senior official at the NID says that there is international practice of intercepting calls of suspi­cious persons with terrorist links.

“In our case, it could be used in criminal activities. But there is high chance of such provisions being used against political opponents as well,” he says. He further says the NID has never intercepted phone calls. “This is going to be the first time it is being practiced in Nepal. The question is over the intent,” he added.

Says National Assembly member Prakash Panta, “This act permits direct interference in people’s privacy. Now government agencies can hear conver­sations between couples. Emails sent by journalists to their editors will be tracked by government agencies, which could result in pre-censorship.”

After endorsement from the National Assembly, the bill will be forwarded to the House of Representatives for final approval.

Similarly, the Information Technology Bill, which was endorsed by the Develop­ment and Technology Committee of the House, has several provisions that constrain people’s rights to freedom of speech and expression.

Now, the bill will be tabled in full House and is likely to be endorsed as the ruling party has the numbers required. With objec­tion from various quarters, the bill was referred to the committee to incorporate public concerns. But no change was made. The bill, if endorsed, will replace the Elec­tronic Transaction Act that was promulgated in 2008, section 47 of which was often invoked to detain journalists.

The new bill provides for fine of up to Rs 1.5 million and/or five-year imprison­ment for individuals who post contents that sexually ‘harass, bully or defame others.’ Regulation of social media remains a widely discussed issue in European and western countries. In South Asia, such laws are perceived to be guided by an intention of suppressing individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

“It seems that political interest was dominant while these laws were formulated to restrict social media. They want to silence the views of the people who criticize the government,” says Tara Nath Dahal, former chairman of the Federation of Nepalese Journalist (FNJ).

Supreme neglect

The National Assembly is deliberating the Media Council Bill to replace the current Press Council Act, 1990. It also has provisions to restrict freedom of speech and expression. “If the Media Council Bill is endorsed as it is, the press council will be like a division of the Ministry of Information and Technology,” Dahal adds.

The FNJ had launched a series of protests against this bill, and the ruling Nepal Communist Party leaders had pledged to address the FNJ’s concerns. But there has been no progress.

The media fraternity has been condemn­ing the government’s lack of commitment to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court, which is mandated to inter­pret the constitution, could questions such contradictory laws. But the court’s constitutional bench that is to look after these issues does not seem to care. The FNJ has taken serious exception to the Media Council Bill. “In the past, ruling party leaders have signed agreements with us not to bring laws compromising press freedom. But the government has often gone back on its own words,” rues Ram Prasad Dahal, secretary at the FNJ. “We are consulting various sections of the society about protesting against those laws.”

International organizations working on media freedom have said that the Informa­tion Technology Bill undermines freedom of expression.

“The controversial bill—passed by the Devel­opment and Technology Committee of the House of Representative (HoR) on Decem­ber 29—threatens freedom of speech online. Among the concerns expressed by Nepali journalist organizations are that it includes provisions to impose fines of up to Rs 1.5 million (over 10.000 €) or jail terms up to five years for posting content on social media that in the eyes of government may pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty, security, unity or harmony,” according to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).

The bill, if enacted, would replace the exist­ing Electronic Transaction Act that too has been widely misused to arrest and harass citizens for their social media posts. “Accord­ing to the cybercrime cell at Nepal Police, 106 cases were filed in the Kathmandu Valley in the last three years for ’illegal’ posts on social media. This apart, the bill provides for far tougher punishments for committing the same offense on the internet than in person,” the FNJ said.

Gokul Baskota, Minister for Communication and Information Technology

The Information Technology Bill is aimed at stopping cyber bullying. It will help maintain social discipline. Freedom does not mean a society without reasonable restrictions. The pro­visions are also intended at bringing various social media sites under the tax net.

 Anushtup Sherma, 21,
Student

“If someone can see the mes­sages I send over social media platforms, I would contact the police. But if the government itself is involved, what I can do except stop using those plat­forms? Bringing such restric­tive bills is against our funda­mental rights.”

 Aayuska Shrestha, 19,
Student

“There should be a system to notify the government if something suspicious happens in social media and investiga­tion conducted accordingly. This will help maintain right to privacy. The government should look to protect people’s privacy as well as to punish criminals.”

Isha Thapa, 20,
Student, and actor at Fun Revolution TV

“This is the age of democracy and technological advance­ment. People have changed over the years. They are now more aware about their rights, and can think on their own. So it won’t be easy for the gov­ernment to pull off this kind of dictatorial trick.”

Susan Chaudhary, 19,
Student

“I don’t have any problem if the government uses my per­sonal info for some investiga­tion with my consent. I will not accept if they use it for third party advertisement or any other unspecified purpose. If the bill is implemented, people will start speaking carefully.”

Saurav Thapa Shrestha, 23,
General Secretary at Yuwa, a youth-related NGO

“The policy should clarify that whatever I send and receive on social media can be seen only when the content is fishy or for some criminal investigation. But that needs to be done with our permission. There is no clarity on “hate speech”. They must sit with the relevant stakeholders before they finalize and pass the IT bill. Clarity is a must.”

Samiksha Shrestha, 19,
Student

“It’s okay to bring the law to control online contents used to sexually harass, bully, or defame others, and to punish those who are involved. But the same law should not penal­ize users for their private on­line posts. This will curtail their freedom of speech and right to privacy.”

Tebrej Siddiqui, 19,
Student

“The government should check only suspicious messages. Be­yond that it will be difficult to survive as our right to privacy will be violated and we will no longer feel safe.”

Sumikchya Shakya, 19,
Student

“Though this bill can con­trol cyber-crimes, I see many drawbacks as personal data will not remain private. People can misuse this bill for their in­terest. I am against it.”

Prastuti Bhattarai, 20,
Student

“I have been following news on this new bill, and I’m disappoint­ed. I do not trust the government with my privacy and my infor­mation, and I’m sure most Nepalis feel like I do. For instance, I might share my ATM PIN number with my parents in social media and there is no guarantee that people in authority will not abuse the information. Instead of eaves­dropping on someone’s private life, the government should focus on infrastructure development. Those in the government should seriously get a life instead of be­having like aunties of our com­munity who gossip about who is someone talking with, what they are doing, and who are they roaming around with.”

Nepal’s international stakes are increasing. A Nepali national is shot dead on the Indo-Pakistan border, fight­ing for India. Another day, an Iraqi military base where at least a dozen Nepalis work is bombed. In the fear that the US-Iran conflict could escalate, oil prices increase and folks in Kathmandu can be seen lining up outside petrol pumps. The same day, Nepal deports 122 Chinese nationals, on con­troversial grounds. These days, as a part of the government’s ‘diversification’ policy, our prime minister visits not just India and China but even seemingly inconsequential countries for Nepal like Costa Rica and Cambodia. Nepal depends on income from the Gulf. A record number of Nepali students study in the US and Australia.

This sort of forced globalization presents Nepal with all kinds of foreign policy challenges. If Nepalis are killed in an Iranian bombing in Iraq inside a base controlled by the US, who do we hold to account? If those sent to China are tortured, how will Nepal be answerable? Can India hang someone nabbed from Nepal on suspicion of terrorism? If, tomorrow, there is a direct conflict between our BRI and IPS commitments, how do we settle it?

Last week, Indian strategic thinker C. Raja Mohan, in an interview with Kantipur daily, advised Nepali leaders to ditch their ideological lenses and take a ‘horses for courses’ approach to diplomacy. If an outside power is ready to invest in sectors Nepal deems important, why be queasy about accepting the help? It’s not that easy. First, it is unclear what is strategic and what is not. The MCC grant may help Nepal build roads and electricity infrastructure it needs. But what if it also entails unforeseen obligations down the line?

Similarly, were the Chinese nationals sent north ‘deported’ or ‘extradited’? What were their crimes, if any? Was Nepal pressured into forgoing due process by the Chinese? If Nepal accepts BRI help, won’t it be even more beholden to China? Or to the Americans for accepting the MCC compact: What if the Americans ask for greater freedoms for Tibetans in Nepal, and the Chinese are dead opposed to it?

Besides our recent outreach to India, China and the US, Nepal is now also looking to engage Russia, and has even invited its president to visit. But doesn’t Nepal risk overex­tending itself in the process, earning the trust of none but the ire of even its limited number of friends abroad?

The outgoing Indian envoy Manjeev Singh Puri liked to talk about the impact of globalization on Nepalis. In this global­izing world, India would supposedly be okay with Nepal’s greater engagement with other powers. Nepal, he advised, should also decouple its relations with India and China, and do what it thinks is in its best interest. But if the course prescribed by the business-like Puri in Nepal was right, why has the outlook of the Indian establishment steadily hard­ened on Nepal over the past year? Forget settling Kalapani, why hasn’t India even accepted the EPG report formed with mutual consent?

Whether with the Indians, the Chinese, or the Americans, it’s easy to preach to a small power. Given the checkered history of big-power rivalry in Nepal, it is also natural for Nepalis to be skeptic.

The communist circles in Nepal are in an uproar vis-à-vis the proposed $500 mil­lion Millennium Challenge Cor­poration-Nepal Compact (MCC-NC). The Standing Committee members of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) appear divided, for and against it. Though not surpris­ing, the NCP folks’ targeting the compact, for their own hidden agenda, is unfortunate.

First, the intra-party feud in the NCP hints of a wish to consol­idate power. The brand identity of this ‘ruling class’ resembles a half-baked potato. The outer layer is a mixture of the jargons of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and janabaad. The inner core com­prises a coterie of crony capital­ists. Their intraparty duality and tussles have, in fact, weakened Nepal’s prosperity and credibility. For example, prosperity is limited to the ruling class and the coterie, and the power brokers in the NCP. Now, those comrades who are not in the ruling armchairs want to reveal their ultra-nationalist credentials at the country’s cost.

Over the past few weeks, Nepal has witnessed an eruption of opin­ions about the MCC-NC across different media outlets. It seems those folks have been trying to find the right answer by asking the wrong questions. In general, opinion-makers and journalists have shown their ideology-biased attitudes by twisting the facts and intentions.

The entire process of the com­pact has gone through consulta­tions with multiple stakeholders at different levels, under six dif­ferent prime ministers of Nepal. It is pathetic to raise questions, guided by self-interest, on a few terms and conditions of a pro­gram that could be exemplary in terms of scope, timing, and execu­tion. First, it should be noted that none of the terms and conditions were developed unilaterally. Sec­ond, the terms and conditions are not for any loan. These are aimed exclusively for the betterment of the Nepali people. But some political professionals do not like this idea.

Further, the MCC-NC’s terms and conditions also reflect Nepal government’s current picture as well as its overall performance in the past few decades. Addi­tionally, these terms serve as a feedback for future planning and program development, if politi­cians are willing to pay attention. For example, Nepal has not been able to execute a single so-called national pride project within the given timeframe and budget. Both the total costs and timelines for all 22 national price projects have at least doubled—and these projects are yet to be completed. That’s a fact.

Just look at the Melamchi proj­ect, which is incomplete even after 22 years. Interestingly, not a single NCP member raised a question when its contractor was kicked out by the concerned min­istry during the project’s final lap. Why were the current ultra-na­tionalist NCP members silent? Everybody knows how their claim of zero-corruption collapsed then.

Some NCP folks have also raised another conspiracy theory against the MCC-NC. The com­rades who strongly advocate Chi­na’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) assume that the compact chal­lenges it. These comrades are comparing apples with orang­es. The BRI projects will incur loans of unknown terms and conditions, whereas the com­pact is an aid project with full transparency.

Let me ask just one question: When the US States accepted over 90,000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal, did anybody raise a question about its motive? After the establishment of diplomatic relations between Nepal and the US in 1948, people of Nepal have benefited by many altruistic acts of the US. The recent controversy may reverse this course.

Commoners now realize that the ulterior motive of this ruling class is to enrich themselves by institutionalizing corruption and protecting their comrades’ crony capitalism. For instance, the gov­ernment has secretly benefitted its near and dear business hous­es by mobilizing Nepal Trust’s properties (former king’s land). This only shows that Nepal is both ruled and ruined by a few individuals. Again, not a single member of the NCP raised a ques­tion about such opaque dealings.

The NCP and its ruling class use their communist propagan­da machine to influence public opinion, and there are plenty of parrots to sing to their tunes. As Mark Twain once wrote: “Morals, religions, and politics get their following from surrounding influ­ences and atmospheres, almost entirely; not from study, not from thinking.” The people of Nepal should not be victims of the com­rades’ intra-party feuds and she­nanigans.

The author is an economist