Breaking the silence

This article was published in The Kathmandu Post, March 11, 2015

History is full of ironies. What the late Girija Prasad Koirala did to bring the Maoist rebels into mainstream politics in 2006 might have been more important than the Maoist movement that began in 1996 itself. Yet the doings of the Maoists in the decade long insurgency which shook the roots of Nepal’s feudal social structure was perhaps more important than what the Nepali Congress did in the 1990s. And now, what ex-king Gyanendra Shah is trying to do might turn into an even more powerful play than what political parties have been doing since the first Constitution Assembly (CA) elected in 2008.

Last month, issuing a press statement on the eve of the Democracy Day, Gyanendra Shah strongly urged political parties to implement all past agreements—without elaborating what they were—reached with him. The statement comes at a time when political polarisation among parties reflected badly on society. Political parties, who were the signatories of the 12-point agreement, have been postponing meaningful talks to reach consensus on major issues of state restructuring. In such a scenario, to what extent will the press statement affect the future course of Nepali politics? Is a new ‘political card’ being introduced in Nepali politics, which is shaped more or less by what India wants and China tries to avoid or vice versa?

These questions need to be understood in the context of the rise of Narendra Modi and his party—the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—in India and China’s constant struggle to find a reliable force in Nepal to deal on numerous issues.

Indian intentions

Contary to popular belief, Narendra Modi is not merely a development-oriented BJP leader. His political career was built on the foundations of Hindu nationalism, along with slogans that promised prosperity to the Indian poor. Modi’s public appearances and his rhetoric send subtle hints about where his political spirit comes from. For instance, when Modi appealed to the Nepali government draft a constitution based on consensus among political parties last November, he was not only trying to indicate that the ruling parties get the Maoists on board, but was also reminding the Nepali leadership to rethink about giving space to the ex-king and other parties which are in favour of the monarchy.

His visit to the Pashupatinath temple and the media outcry which followed sent a symbolic message to all Hindus in South Asia and to Nepali people that the current leadership in India is in favour of the return of the kings, who are perceived to be the incarnations of the Hindu god Bishnu. The Indian prime minister’s visit to Nepal after 17 years was, of course, a sign of goodwill. But let us not be naïve. State visits carry symbolic messages and indicate the political direction of the leadership. However, it would be too early to speculate that India will openly work to revive the monarchy in Nepal. But India is ready to ‘secretly’ support Gyanendra Shah if he shows an interest to be active in national politics.

Chinese concerns

If we look carefully towards the northern frontier, it is not hard to see that China wants a stable Nepal, at least with one political force that it can fully rely on and work together on issues ranging from development to its own security-related concerns in Tibet. The emerging global powerhouse has certain interests in the whole of South Asia. For these

reasons, China wishes to see a legitimate and powerful political force in Nepal. However, as per China’s diplomatic policies, it will stay away from making any clear interventions in its neighbouring countries’ internal issues.

It is hard to see how China perceives the ex-king and its support for him at the moment. But let us not forget that it was Gyanendra Shah who was the first to second the proposal to give Observer status to China at the 2005 Saarc Summit. China would certainly not make the mistake of being open about supporting any force in Nepali politics. But it is true that the Chinese academia, policymakers and diplomats know more about monarchical Nepal and its royal family than about any other forces. Still, China might not lend support to the ex-king. But to be frank, China has not paid back its due to Gyanendra Shah, who was trying to annoy India by supporting to grant China Observer status in Saarc.  

Even though neither of Nepal’s neighbours showed any sympathy to its monarchy when Gyanendra Shah abdicated his throne, it is easier to show some sort of support now. And, if played well, the seeming indifference could turn out to be a strategic move.

By now, both China and India have understood very clearly that a federally restructured Nepal will be difficult to deal with. Both the neighbours have a common understanding—a centralised Nepal would be favourable for them—though their interests hardly complement each other.

State of chaos

On the domestic front, Nepal’s chaotic state of affairs has amplified voices that openly lobby in favour of the ex-king. For many, the only thing that has been institutionalised after the abolishment of monarchy has been corruption. People had placed their hopes on the Maoists but they eventually repeated the Nepali Congress’s and CPN-UML’s follies committed in the 1990s.

Against this backdrop, the ex-king came out with a press statement on the same day when Maoist cadres were marching on the streets with lathis in Kathmandu. To many, this might have been regular politics. But sometimes, the truth takes time to reveal itself and the reality remains blurred until we stop avoiding it.

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, the country’s future looks uncertain for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the ex-king’s new card could be more powerful.

Poudel is a researcher at the Beijing-based ThinkIN China. Views expressed are personal

False narrative

This article was first published in The Kathmandu Post, Jan 26, 2015.

By now, UCPN (Maoist) leaders Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai must understand very well that in a consumer culture, a colour television appeals more to the Nepal masses, including themselves, than the Communist Manifesto. However, one should not forget a decade-long communist movement was successfully concluded in Nepal in 2006, despite Francis Fukuyama’s ‘grand narrative’ of the end of history in 1989. The Maoist leadership, especially former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, was no doubt well aware of Fukuyama’s announcement of changes in the human landscape with a victory of consumer culture over communism before kicking off the armed insurgency in 1996.

It is not that Maoist leaders do not know what is best for the country; it is just they have been swallowed by the fear of being sidelined in national politics for the foreseeable future. This makes them anxious, and the media, civil society, and all other stakeholders should realise that leaving constitution writing completely to the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML will not lead the country forward.

Maoist agendas

Political parties are getting more polarised each day and they seem unlikely to promulgate a 

constitution acceptable to all. The Maoists have been sticking to a federal structure based on

ethnic identity while the NC and UML are on a different boat. Pressure from the people is

mounting because of the general perception that all problems will be solved once we have a constitution. Ironically, the media is not supporting the opposition for a democratic and free society. In an interview with the BBC Nepali Sewa, Bhattarai said that the media is taking the side of the so-called upper class and feeding their interests.  

In a recent interview with Kantipur Daily, Pitambar Sharma, a notable thinker, highlighted that

the NC-UML feel that they were dragged into the process of federally restructuring the country.

Putting aside all illogical issues related to ethnic identity that the Maoist party is talking about, we all know that it was the primary driving force, which attracted all of us to be a part of this historic change. The issue of inclusion was more important for the Maoists than for any other party, and that is what has made our CA one of the most inclusive institutions ever in Nepali history.

There will always be a section of the people who will stick to superficial and simplified versions of reality. And they generally come from the upper class of society. Media managers, of course, try to go with who is in power, since a large part of media business is all about corporate decisions rather than speaking the truth or supporting vulnerable groups. We have been seeing how the Indian media is often entirely in favour of the powerful, the government, and business leaders in recent times. Sometimes, it seems Nepal is a reflection of Indian minds in most cases—from the media to politics.

Multiple identities

Ideally, communism treasures the idea of protecting the dignity of the poor and the marginalised

and advocates for their betterment. Having said that, our society has moved far beyond and we continue to exist in an orderly exchange of personal choices and sharing of preferences. Politics has gone beyond ideology and our identity is not just defined by our ethnic roots. Each individual makes distinct choices and holds different aspirations and beliefs. All these make a person and their roles in society a reflection of what they think, do, and try to deliver. All these actions are limited by one’s social, economic, and political status. Ethnic identity alone, therefore, hardly matters. The Maoist’s insistence on federalising Nepal along ethnic identities is therefore faulty.

Federalising Nepal based on ethnic identity could discourage the flow of people from one place

to another due to a fear of being marginalised. That would be reflected in our production system.

Innovation will be subdued as movement of people comes to a halt. This scenario gives a clear

indication of potential conflicts among and between different states. Meanwhile, we are also not

sure about checks and balances in the new federal structure of the country.

Against this backdrop, what happened in the Constituent Assembly (CA) last Monday midnight was not mere political agitation. It was a reflection of our social and political culture and level of tolerance. There are innumerable things that make one individual or group angry but the fear of losing one’s identity is the most compelling. The social, economic, and political development of Nepal is concentrated in a group that has access to power. A large section of society still lives with no access to education, health, or basic sanitation facilities. What we should not forget is that our CA members are products of our social reality and economic status. Drafting a constitution might be just another political game for some, but it is a battle to protect identity and respect for a majority of the people, especially for those who have been marginalised and exploited for a long time.

Decent dissent

While the Maoist party is not an absolutely honest political force, it is true that it gave voice to

the concerns of the people. It is the same force that fought against feudal lords in our society.

Having said that, we live in a society where there is still a stronghold of those who benefitted

from the monarchical system. No matter how liberal society seems while observing happenings

in the Capital, Nepal remains far behind from looking at the corners of the Far West and along

the borders with India, where access to Kathmandu is a mirage.

So this is the time to show political maturity and tolerance for each other. Again, supporting the

argument to leave constitution writing in the hands of the NC and UML alone would not be a wise

move by the media, intellectuals, and activists. What we have been trying to institutionalise were

not the agendas of the ruling coalition. However, the Maoist party also has to calm down and

adopt decent ways of expressing dissent.

Poudel is a researcher at the Beijing-based ThinkIN China

Cleaning the drainage

This article was first published in The Kathmandu Post, March 24, 2017

In the last three months, Nepal hosted three mega summits: the Power Summit, the Infrastructure Summit and the Investment Summit. The central message was that Nepal needs to attract foreign investment to overcome infrastructure deficits and attain the desired double digit economic growth rate. Political forces also reiterated their support for this initiative, and committed to facilitating the investment process in the priority sectors of energy, agriculture, tourism and infrastructure. 

Is FDI enough?

Investors from eight countries pledged investments totalling $13.5 billion in the Investment Summit. The question is whether an inflow of FDI alone will trigger the economic take off required to attain and maintain a double digit economic growth rate. It is necessary to sustain this growth rate for a decade for Nepal to be a middle-income country by 2022. 

Nepal is beset by numerous problems that hinder prosperity; almost everyone from bureaucratic, political, academic and development sectors can pinpoint different obstacles. What’s more, everyone has a set of recommendations on how the country should be developed, and everyone believes that there is someone to blame. Several development partners and academicians have made policy recommendations that the government is trying to implement; however, this has not yet helped to accelerate economic development. National pride projects have been delayed, capital expenditure is low and the productive sector is sluggish. Large sections of the society are disappointed with the governance of Nepal’s current political parties, and claim that they are responsible for the sad state of affairs. However, the emergence of some new political parties with fresh leadership has led to renewed political initiatives. 

Against this backdrop, it is important to focus on one particular area to bring about change so as to embark on the road to economic prosperity. This entails an understanding of Nepal’s current problems from the perspective of behavioural economics. The reason behind this proposition is the fact that Nepal’s development activities have been in limbo, not due to the lack of resources, but because of the behavioural tendencies of Nepal’s politicians, bureaucrats, development workers and citizens. I am drawing this conclusion based on my visits to over two dozen districts in the last three months, during which I interacted with local people, representatives from local government bodies, and development workers at the ground level. 

communities clean to building small infrastructure. 

From the beginning of modern Nepal, the economy has been subject to political transitions. All political systems have been unable to address the structural problems impeding economic growth. While reforms in the early 1990s were instrumental in effecting positive change, they neglected to address problems of land use patterns and rent-seeking mentality. Thus, government policies have been unable to match people’s expectations. Perhaps the second generation of reform initiatives currently underway will do better. 

While policy reform initiatives are undoubtedly a foundation for economic development, they are not enough. These policy reform initiatives need to be accompanied by a change in the deep-rooted structural socio-economic Nepali mindsets. The lahure mentality of Nepali society is ever present. In earlier days, youths used to leave for India in the hope of military recruitment, or for employment in the Indian labour market. Now, they aspire to leave for South Korea, Japan, Europe and America, or to get a job in the Middle East and Malaysia. There are few incentives for young people to stay in Nepal.

Despite exponential technological advancements and the creation of efficient tools for agriculture activities, Nepal’s agriculture sector remains at the subsistence level. Tools for commercialising agriculture and starting agro-businesses are unfeasible when people in the Tarai lack simple irrigation systems. And although pompous slogans abound in the tourism sector, there are no well-planned tourist destinations. Trekking routes lack standard safety measures, and historic places such as the Gorkha Durbar, Lamjung Durbar, and the Janaki Mandir are in a state of dilapidation. 

No clear policy frameworks

Recent discussions have proposed ways to bring in billions of FDI in diverse sectors, highlighting the fact that these investments could complement the goal of economic development. These discussions focus on Nepal becoming a ‘bridge’ between China and India, thus establishing a trilateral mechanism for cooperation among the three countries. This would facilitate Nepal’s participation in China’s One-Belt, One-Road (OBOR) initiative and create a regional energy cooperation mechanism in South Asia. These are external factors that could accelerate the economic growth rate; however, none of these are in the implementation phase. The government lacks a clear framework to execute plans connected with foreign policy. Though the economy is in need of an immediate push, the implementation of these mechanisms and the subsequent results seem distant. 

Behavioural perspective

People at the local level have a tendency of staying idle, with the expectations that the state will provide something. However, the state often fails to meet even the basic expectations of these people. Instead of initiating and participating in ‘doable’ activities, individuals and communities have a proclivity for refraining from such enterprises expecting things to be done by the government. While it is the responsibility of the government to meet the expectations of its citizens to a certain level, there is an increasing reliance on the state to do everything, from keeping 

Political instability and corrupt leaders are the main causes of Nepal’s socio economic backwardness. Leaders and politicians exhibit a general lack of responsibility towards the nation’s economic development. One of the reasons behind this mindset could be that the incentive structures have been distorted right from the beginning, with the opening up of the economy in the early 1990s. While some development initiatives have been taken by the people, such initiatives are on a very minimal scale. The inflow of FDI and the resultant development of infrastructure will certainly lead the country towards economic development. But behavioural change in our public and private sectors are prerequisites for such advancements. 

Nepal’s development bottleneck is not due to a lack of resources or policies per se. It is largely owing to the behavioural problems plaguing our leaders, bureaucrats and people in general. A large number of improvements could be made efficiently, and without state intervention. Development is a matter of conscious realisation where every individual works to improve the larger society. In the absence of this conscious realisation, nothing can help. 

Time to act

First published in Republica Daily

Regulating NGOs
In June 2013, leaders of Nepal’s political parties—except UCPN (Maoist)—jointly issued a press release against the then government’s decision to upgrade the capacity of Upper Trishuli III ‘A’ hydropower project from 60 to 90 megawatts. The press release was prepared in a Kathmandu based office of an INGO working in Nepal. Finance Minister Dr Ram Sharan Mahat was one of the senior leaders in the meeting and had signed that release.
The event was reported by all the major news media. Since upgrading the capacity of the project was not in the favor of country’s economy and power sector, the press release was seen as having good intentions and the move was, quite rightly, not questioned by anyone, including the media. But the question arises: Why did senior leaders of major political parties issue the press release from an INGO office?
What’s wrong in doing that in a country where more than 60 percent of the fiscal budget comes from donor agencies, you may argue. You are right in a way. But it raises some serious questions: Aren’t we an independent nation? Don’t we have to deal with our issues ourselves? What sort of development practice are we undertaking? What is the distinction between government agencies, political parties and I/NGOs? What is their role in country’s development? How should they be working and what kind of moral and ethical codes should the political parties follow when it comes to I/NGOs?

Dr Mahat, who engineered the development plan that yielded record high economic growth rate and created an environment for entrepreneurship post-1990, has recently assumed the office of Finance Minister for the sixth time. But we must not forget his inability to limit the level of corruption which partly caused the increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. This created a fertile ground for Maoist insurgency. Now is the right time to ask him about his policy toward I/NGOs as well as bilateral development agencies that are hesitant to funnel money through government mechanisms.
It is an understood fact that the Maoists exploited massive inequality in the country in order to further their movement. Former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, the chief architect of Maoist insurgency, drafted his political-economic rationale based on inequality that could not be addressed in post-1990 development. The result of the recent election, where Nepali Congress and CPN-UML emerged as the two major parties, is not a mandate for them to hobnob with the elites and sideline the marginalized people. While democracy and capitalistic system are the most convincing systems in the modern development course of the world, it should not be an instrument to create a vacuum, again, for another kind of ‘unjust’ society.
Development institutions like World Bank and Asian Development Bank are trying to help Nepal build infrastructure that the country needs at this moment. There are other genuine bilateral development partners, who are our long-term friends, and who definitely want to see Nepal become a prosperous country. But we should think about I/NGOs that work without much of a rationale to their work. It might be hard to make a black and white judgment about their contribution in country’s development but political leaders should try to stay away from these sorts of I/NGOs.
There might be an argument that these I/NGOs are a part of civil society. But the question has already been raised about funded organizations being part of the civil society. It becomes more and more difficult to draw a line between a genuine development-oriented organization and a mere propaganda machine of some group when it comes to I/NGO movement. The question, again, is what kind of moral and ethical ground can be built to have a meeting to issue a press release against the government’s decision in an office of an INGO. Moral and ethical questions may sound vague, but we have the right to expect answers from our leaders. Who in today’s society can show a sense of morality and ethical behavior if the leaders cannot?
It is not justifiable to put all I/NGOs in the same basket but what is our standard to measure them and figure out which one is working in whose interest? Mahat is right in what he has written in his book In Defense of Democracy: Dynamics and Fault Lines of Nepal’s Political Economy about the loss of Arun III because of INGOs against the project. What about his attitude towards I/NGOs now? Are politician Mahat and author of the book two different people?
The incumbent government, particularly Finance Minister Mahat, has shown an unprecedented interest and enthusiasm in hydropower sector since the formation of the government. It’s appreciable. It is also true to a large extent that the economic decision that made by this government will be an outcome of what Mahat believes in and does. For that matter, it is important to ask him some fundamental moral questions at this time. Any small mistake that we make now will have a long-lasting impact in country’s economic course.
This one case in the hydropower sector demonstrates how we largely fail to comprehend the dynamics of development. Development and prosperity are more accessible to a large section of people in a free and democratic society. But the execution of programs and policies should be done carefully.
In this backdrop, we also have to be considerate about the difficult coalition government and its limitation. But that does not give the leaders an excuse to be too accessible to I/NGOs in the country. The present government has to be bold enough to ask all the bilateral development partners including India to spend development aid through the Red Book of the Finance Ministry. This will not only help us be more transparent but also develop a system that will be institutionalized in the long run.
Lastly, we have to learn from African country Lesotho. It is still a poor country despite the fact that it has been receiving development assistance from more than 30 developed countries and is a hub of I/NGOs in the name of development. According to the anthropologist James Ferguson, the people of Lesotho have been subject to experiment and the joy-ride of development money. Let’s hope Mahat will not let the Nepalis be subject to similar experiment for ‘development anchors’.

Starting anew

First published in Republica Daily 

THIRD BIMSTEC SUMMIT

In July 2000 the then foreign minister Chakra Prasad Bastola wrote a letter expressing an interest on full membership of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). After four years, Nepal formally joined BIMSTEC in February 2004 and attended its first summit in Bangkok in a delegation led by the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. After a decade, Prime Minister Sushil Koirala is leading the Nepali delegation to third BIMSTEC summit being held in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar from March 1 to 4.
In last decade, many of the country’s social, political and economic realities have changed, including the major shift from monarchy to republic. The then rebel force has joined mainstream politics. Many smaller changes have also been witnessed in different areas. But unfortunately, we have not been able to make significant changes in international trade, or bilateral relationships with our trade partners and regional stakeholders.
Sushil Koirala is the second prime minister post-1990 who is making his first foreign visit to a South East Asian country, as opposed to the past precedent of making the first visit as PM to India. This may not bother other stakeholders in the region or in international community, except India. As an aside to the summit, Koirala will have a sideline meeting with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh. A man of principles and simplicity, Koirala should be utilizing this forum to give a message that Nepal is ready to move forward with multilateral and bilateral trade and investment pacts with any country in the region.
In December 2006, Ministry of Industry Commerce and Supplies and South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (SAWTEE) jointly organized a roundtable on BIMSTEC and South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA). The opinions expressed in that roundtable are interesting, not because officials and experts underlined the importance of India for Nepal’s international trade, but because they outlined the country’s membership in different regional agreements as strategies to avoid overreliance on India (and disastrous consequences like the 1989 economic blockage). BIMSTEC is not always efficient in executing its action plans, but it is nonetheless a crucial forum for a country like Nepal to establish closer ties with the likes of Myanmar, Thailand, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Just like Nepal, all these countries are going through painful political transitions and witnessing interventions from different powers.
Most BIMSTEC countries are going through several problems. Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar are low income countries whereas Sri Lanka, Bhutan and India are lower-middle income countries. Thailand is the only one upper-middle income country as per World Bank classification. However, the similarities among these countries are vast and can be exploited for cooperation. At the same time, these countries are also competitors in terms of attracting foreign investors for development.
The political leadership has to keep in mind that such forums are not just meant to sign agreements. International investors and strategic decision makers are closely watching the upcoming summit. China is not a member of BIMSTEC but it has been showing an increasing interest in BIMSTEC since India is not only engaging itself more and more in South Asia but also coming to Myanmar, which China may not like. Nepal’s trade, no matter what, is going to be concentrated on India, but it can open up a way for sharing investment and flow of people with other countries. For instance, a delegation of Nepali businesspeople went to Myanmar in 2013 to explore the possibility of attracting religious tourists to Nepal. There are many Buddhists in Myanmar who would like to visit Lumbini, the birthplace of Gautam Buddha, as a pilgrimage.
Koirala’s visit is an opportunity to show that Nepal is moving towards political stability and economic prosperity. A country’s confidence does not come just from having a big GDP; it is also about leadership in such forums. Koirala should not make the mistake former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal made in 2008 while attending the second BIMSTEC summit in Delhi. He was acting more like an Indian guest at the forum without putting much effort in building relationship with other stakeholders at the forum. In comparison to Dahal, Koirala has been more evenhanded in dealing with India in the past.
BIMSTEC has a total of 14 priority sectors which are led by different member countries. Among them Nepal leads the area of Poverty Alleviation. Given this, Nepal has to show strong leadership by bringing together all member countries in the topic it heads. The ‘poverty plan of action (PPA)’ endorsed by the second Ministerial Meeting of BIMSTEC in Kathmandu in 2012 should be taken seriously as large populations in each country are still under extreme poverty.
Chakra Prasad Bastola, who put such an effort on gaining Nepal full BIMSTEC membership, is now in a coma. His leader Koirala has become the prime minister in a difficult situation and is aiming to complete a constitution through the second Constitution Assembly (CA). The leadership definitely has to accomplish the targeted task but at the same time should be responsible in building positive image of the country in international forums. A good trade and investment relationship with all member countries of BIMSTEC should be considered seriously.
It is as yet unknown how efficient this forum can be in advancing free trade in the region. Nepal’s trade with member countries except India is minimal, which is not surprising. The trade zone can be a forum mainly for investment and tourism promotion, in case of Nepal.
Myanmar, where the summit is taking place, is itself looking for foreign investment, and China and the US both are equally interested in investing there. Not only that, the US keenness in Myanmar has become a reason for China’s fear. Similarly, Nepal is a country where China and India are both interested to invest but neither is in a mood to take any step that can cause suspicion for the other. Nepal and Myanmar can likewise share their experience about dealing with economic powerhouses.
Lastly, Koirala’s visit is going to be a test of his leadership within the country as well. He has no room to fail. Domestic politics and regional dimension should both be handled with care to show he is not only a man of principles but also a statesman. His long political journey will be rewarded if he can send the message that he is not just pretending to lead, but stands on strong ground of morality, principles and people’s faith. Koirala has to step up and make this visit a landmark for the country’s future. Let’s hope it will not be a repetition of Deuba’s Bangkok flight.