Bhim Rawal, public transport and money laundering

Gaushala, Dec 27

On a chilly winter morning, I entered a tea shop in Gaushala for a hot cup of tea. The establishment was already abuzz with banters shared over steaming cups. I noticed six people inside. Most appeared to be regulars—devotees visiting the Pashupatinath temple, I reckoned.

In one corner of the shop, four men were engrossed in a discussion about public transport and traffic rules in Kathmandu Valley. Two of them were bus drivers, and the other two were taxi drivers. One bus driver explained that he transports school children for a private school during the morning and evening hours while operating on regular routes at other times. “During office hours, many buses are busy ferrying school children. That’s why people are left stranded, waiting endlessly at bus stops,” one of the taxi drivers remarked.

The group agreed that schools should not be allowed to use public vehicles, as it causes inconvenience for commuters. They also discussed how much money could be earned working for private schools. However, the bus driver noted that the school had not paid the bus owner for months.

The conversation then shifted to traffic rules. One taxi driver complained that large buses create chaos for smaller vehicles and motorbikes, but the traffic police ignore them. “If we make even a minor mistake, we are penalized immediately. But buses break lanes, cause accidents, and intimidate smaller vehicles. They’re practically immune to the rules,” he claimed.

The four spoke openly and candidly, unbothered by the presence of others in the shop. One of them said, “There is a nexus between the umbrella organization of public buses, the traffic police, and politicians. That’s why the traffic rules remain unenforced and ineffective.”

Another man entered the tea shop and ordered black tea without sugar. He asked the group, “Will they send him (Rabi Lamichhane) to jail for money laundering?” No one responded. He continued, stating that leaders of the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, and CPN (Maoist Centre) had amassed more wealth than Lamichhane and couldn’t explain the sources of their income. One man agreed, arguing that proper investigations would reveal that almost all politicians would end up in jail for money laundering due to the lack of transparency in their earnings. “They live luxurious lives and have amassed huge wealth—what is the source of their income?” he questioned.

At another table, a man was reading the news about political parties’ plans to amend the constitution. “Parties say they are amending the constitution to ensure political stability. However, it’s the political parties, not the constitution, that are responsible for instability,” he said, adding that conflicting opinions among the parties had prevented a consensus on amendments. Others in the tea shop remained silent, seemingly unfamiliar with the details of constitutional changes.

Another hot topic was the ruling UML’s decision to take disciplinary action against Bhim Rawal, Binda Pandey, and Usha Kiran Timalsina for dissenting over the party’s decision to accept land donations from businessman Min Bahadur Gurung. The party expelled Rawal from general membership and suspended Pandey and Timalsina for six months.

The tea shop was sharply divided on this issue. One man, likely a UML sympathizer, defended the move, arguing that party members must adhere to discipline and not oppose the official line. Another man disagreed, stating that leadership in a major party like UML should tolerate dissenting voices. “You cannot expect all leaders and cadres to share the same views in a large party like UML. Suppressing dissent will weaken the party’s strength,” he argued.

The discussion then shifted to Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba’s recent visits to Europe and India. One man pointed out that during her previous visit to India, the minister had met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other high-ranking officials. However, this time, she failed to meet any government officials. He claimed this reflected strained relations between the two countries under the current government.

Another man disagreed, questioning why Nepal’s prime minister would need India’s support at all. Yet another offered a reflective perspective: “Why do our leaders go abroad without sufficient preparation for high-level visits? If she went for health reasons, as has been claimed, she shouldn’t have addressed public programs.”

One participant added that despite the prime minister’s claim of an impending visit to India, Rana’s visit suggested otherwise. He speculated that India might be displeased after Prime Minister Oli’s decision to visit China first and sign the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) framework agreement.