Sunday, March 19, 2017

Making Sense Of Our Sensibilities

Lost in the turbulence of our wider politics last week was a candid appraisal made by a former bureaucrat/aspiring politician of what really does seem to ail us.
Rameshwar Khanal, a former finance secretary who became a prominent member of the Naya Shakti, took the usual course of castigating political parties as being full of people interested only in sowing divisions and perpetuating conflicts. But Khanal didn’t stop there. He also had some harsh words for voters – as in, us – who he said were easily influenced by money.
Khanal’s remarks came in response to questions as to why he chose to leave the Naya Shakti, led by former Maoist chief ideologue Baburam Bhattarai. The interviewer admitted that Khanal spoke after much cajoling, and the interview centered on Naya Shakti and Dr. Bhattarai. Still, his indictment rang true across the political spectrum.
Why are our leaders who and what they are? Because of the people?
That patronage (i.e., corruption) would be the elixir of a restored multiparty democracy was a key talking point of the panchas throughout the dying days of the partyless system. The other side had a ready retort. The autocratic panchas would pocket 90 percent of what they stole, whereas democrats would keep, at most, a tenth of the loot after spending the bulk on greasing the wheels of democracy.
But, then, multiparty democracy would raise corruption to unprecedented – and perhaps unsustainable –levels, the panchas argued. Since the same percentages would hold, the counterargument went, pilferage associated with patronage was far superior morally and ethically. At least there would be value for money.
By the mid-term election campaign in 1994, Nepali Congress candidates could be heard complaining about how expensive it had become to mobilize workers and supporters. A fare of aloo-chiura and water had long given way to chicken and beer to fuel the machine from one stop to the next, and you still couldn’t be sure.
The conspicuous cost of patronage may or may not have consumed Nepal’s second experiment with multiparty democracy. Yet today’s politicians have decided to carefully shun its most egregious excesses and become more creative in the acquisition and disposal of resources.
For one thing, political representation has been increased for every significant articulation of grievances. One effect has been the mutual tolerance exhibited by politicians and the people. Our leaders have defined their project as a perpetual work in progress, where periodic knocks are papered over by multi-pointed agreements. The people, having subliminally accepted that this is the best they are going to get, have reserved the right to oppose without being outright obnoxious.
Consider where we are today. Before the Madhesi alliance withdrew its support from the government, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal fortified his flank by inducting Rastriya Prajantatra Party (RPP) president Kamal Thapa as his senior deputy. The Madhesi parties barely got to contemplate why the revolutionary Dahal would award the federalism portfolio to Thapa, a vocal advocate of going back to Hindu statehood and monarchy, two of three pillars of New Nepal.
The Election Commission then ordered the RPP to drop those two agendas from its charter if it wanted to contest the elections. As Thapa threatened to resign on the eve of Dahal’s crucial trip to China, the other deputy prime minister, Bimalendra Nidhi grumbled that he couldn’t play second fiddle to Thapa, who tabled a constitutional amendment proposal to restore Hindu statehood.
As the agitating Madhesi alliance began thinking about rethinking its approach to the Dahal government, a key Madhesi leader Bijay Kumar Gachchaddar pondered returning to the Nepali Congress. (A party, in the laconic words of leader of the opposition, Khadga Prasad Oli, that is a buffalo that can barely carry the load of a goat.)
Before you could grapple with this snarl, a hardline Hindu man of the cloth became the leader of the most populous Indian state, which adjoins a large part of our southern border. The operative question then became: did Thapa and his party deliberately keep the monarchy out of the latest amendment proposal? The ongoing or planned visits by the head of the US military’s Pacific Command, the Chinese defense minister and the Indian army chief have heightened the geo-strategic dimensions of our national existence.
Perhaps the blame game between politicians and people should gather pace. After all, it’s the easiest way to make sense of our sensibilities.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

The Ambassador Supreme And Mission Creep

Manjeev Singh Puri
If India was expecting to reset its relationship with Nepal with the appointment of a new ambassador, then the omens are not good.
The reverberations of protests along the border, a day after Indian security forces fatally shot a Nepali man who was protesting their presence on disputed territory, continue.
Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, teetering from the threat by the United Madhesi Democratic Front to withdraw support over the police action against protesters in Saptari, inducted the Rastriya Prajatantra Party’s Kamal Thapa as deputy prime minister. As if that was not astonishing enough, the appointment of Dil Nath Giri, perhaps the most vocal pro-monarchist in that party after the late Padma Sundar Lawoti, can only be emblematic of new options Dahal may be prepared to espouse. (The departure of Prakash Chandra Lohani from the RPP being portentous for Thapa, of course, depending on how developments unfold in the weeks ahead.)
The new tension in western Nepal has given an opening to the entire political spectrum, which has reverted to accusing India of high-handedness. In declaring the deceased, Govinda Gautam, a martyr, Nepal has drawn a line in the sand for the near term. Manjeev Singh Puri, India’s ambassador-designate, thus has his work cut out for him.
The scope for broad ruminations has not been exhausted, though. Puri has not been identified with the agglomeration of foreign policy managers who have established and overseen India’s post-April 2006 approach to Nepal. (Unless, of course, you count Puri’s tenure as deputy permanent representative at the United Nations, during when the Security Council established and oversaw the special political mission in Nepal.)
Puri’s UN tenure, and his subsequent term as India’s representative to the European Union, should provide him with a broader global perspective on Nepal and its place in the region and world. For instance, he could take a fresh look at his statement defending New Delhi’s decision to abstain from the March 2011 Security Council vote on the Libya no-fly zone (particularly part pertaining to his government’s “unwilling[ness] to support far-reaching measures” in the absence of credible information on the situation on the ground. This is not to underestimate the uphill task for Puri – even if he wanted to – to break free from the Ministry of External Affairs’ viceregal orientation toward Kathmandu.
Speaking of Puri’s tenure at the EU, how can we forget the brouhaha of almost exactly a year ago? Our government maintained that the March 30, 2016 India-European Union joint statement’s emphasis on the need for “a lasting and inclusive constitutional settlement in Nepal that will address the remaining constitutional issues in a time bound manner, and promote political stability and economic growth” had ‘hurt’ the sentiments of the Nepali people. Another group of Nepalis felt that the government statement had injured their feelings.
We cannot gauge the full implications of Puri’s appointment amid the fact that Nepalis are pretty much discussing that same issue. What can be said, though, is that the generational shift Puri represents may discourage him from punishing Nepal for the foothold the Chinese have made here since the country’s turn to republicanism, federalism and secularism.
New Delhi’s desire to begin confronting Beijing amid the shifting global power equations might make much strategic sense. In specific terms, the collision of competing spheres of influence reinforced by history and geography would require full and unwavering commitment to a credible objective.
Amid the upsurge of anti-Indian sentiment on the foundation of lingering distrust of New Delhi’s motives in Nepal’s prolonged transition, Puri would also have to articulate and inhibit the imponderables stemming from the election results in the two key border states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
The ambience certainly won’t change for Puri but the undercurrents always open up possibilities – good or bad, depending on your point of view.

Sunday, March 05, 2017

Oli Wants Back In: Will He Be The Same Man?

Taking a leaf from former king Gyanendra, ex-premier Khadga Prasad Oli the other day sought to plant new seeds of national reassurance.
“Some forces may have succeeded in removing the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist from power, but they have not been able to remove us from the people’s hearts and minds,” he declared the other day.
From the turnout at the recent legs of the UML’s Mechi-Mahakali Campaign, Oli can’t be entirely derided. In fact, the man continues to draw our collective attention, if not our unrelenting empathy.
In the election-vs-amendment rigmarole, Oli has gotten the upper hand – for now.  Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal has adopted an entirely uncharacteristic Dhristarashtra-like aura of resignation in his current tenure on almost everything of substance. On the question of elections, however, he retains the revolutionary’s defiance in favor of the sanctity of the popular will.
Expecting to ride high on a nationalist agenda, the UML can’t wait for the elections. Its rivals see this antsiness with a mixture of trepidation and disdain.
During times like these, count on former Maoist ideologue Baburam Bhattarai to eke out relevance from the margins of seeming idleness. Oli and C.K. Raut are two sides of the same coin, Bhattarai posited the other day.
Whether Bhattarai – who is battled disgruntlement within his new Naya Shakti – has exposed himself to charges of sedition in having sought to elevate the separatist Madhesi leader to the status of the leader of the opposition is perhaps immaterial to Oli.
Nor does the UML chief seem too bothered by Bhattarai’s other insinuation – that Oli is the most prominent anti-Madhesi figure in the political firmament. A Gorkhali castigating a Jhapali on that count does defy Nepali political geography.
Still, Oli has something better going for him. The last time Maila Baje checked, Oli had never advocated the full and complete separation of the northern Nepali heft as an or-else proviso of his political program.
For now, Oli’s parables are focused on the what-might-have-been strand of national prognostication. His government’s ‘northern expedition’ retains much of its original public popularity amid persistent cheap shots of the Maoist-Centre and the Nepali Congress and the official cold-shoulder extended to the Chinese.
Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress is no doubt itching to take over from Dahal, citing the incumbent’s ineptitude. (Hah, ineptitude.) Dissidence building under the leadership of Ram Chandra Poudel doesn’t seem to have dampened Deuba’s ambitions.
Oli, however, is intent on invoking the full deal. For him, the Dahal-Deuba power-sharing accord was predicated on a successful Maoist-Centre-led tenure paving the way for the Nepali Congress’ leadership. Dahal’s current ineptitude, in Oli’s formulation, should block Deuba’s rise to the premiership.
Oli’s ousting as premier last year has only served to strengthen his position within the UML. Former premiers Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhal Nath Khanal don’t look like men in a hurry to return to the lucrative perch inside Singha Durbar.
Oli served the longest as premier in waiting. He is also benefiting the most from his perceived successes in office. The man may not be saying it in so many words, but Oli certainly wants back in. The question is: will he be the same man in his second avatar as prime minister?