Saturday, March 31, 2018

Living Securely In An Unstable World

In its perpetual seesawing on Nepal, China is on the generous high.
On the eve of Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli’s official visit to India – his first trip abroad in his second term – a Chinese government official praised friendly ties between Kathmandu and New Delhi.
“China appreciates the Nepali government's independent foreign policy and supports Nepal in developing friendly and cooperative relations with its neighboring countries,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said in response to a question at a news conference on March 29. “China, Nepal and India are each other's important neighbors, and we hope that the three parties can work together to reinforce each other's efforts to achieve common development.”
Strictly speaking, though, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman didn’t say anything specifically about the state of relations between Kathmandu and New Delhi. If Indian headline writers were eager to project that message, Beijing could afford to be charitable enough not to care.
In letting the Indians take that extended victory lap on Doklam/Dong Lang last year, the Chinese, true to tradition, demonstrated the wisdom of relying on the power of patience. Once the exuberance on the high Himalayas dissolved into the littoral choppiness of the Maldives and Sri Lanka, China’s tone on Nepal, too, was bound to shift.
The we-will-help-Nepal-defend-its-sovereignty-at-all-costs refrain had long receded. Residual traces of anti-Indian recrimination, too, now disappeared. In the deeper background, the resurrected Quad remained confounded and the term ‘Indo-Pacific’ failed to pick up more than rhetorical speed in the geostrategic lexicon.
The Dalai Lama couldn’t visit Sikkim and his followers were advised to tone down their celebration of the Lhasa Uprising anniversary. Sure, there is some talk going on in some Indian circles about flashing the ‘Taiwan card’ at China. But when you’ve already thrown your far more potent Tibetan one?
Magnanimity in countenancing ‘pro-Beijing’ Oli visiting India first costs even less for the Chinese when you consider the mire the ‘assertive’ government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi finds itself in vis-à-vis relations with its South Asian neighbors.
Tempting as it is for Nepalis to gloat, the turn of events provides a cautionary tale. The uproar over the European Union election monitors’ final report overshadowed news of the Indian border police’s arrest of a US military commando near our border “while he was roaming in the area in a suspicious manner”.
In turned out that the commando was trying to get back to India after having been deported in January. The fact that the marine was of South Korean origin no doubt added to the mystery.
Even if China and India have decided to split the difference in Nepal in order to manage their wider rivalry, are the Europeans and the Americans just going to abandon the field? Oli is the first person to recognize the fluidity of our position.
With respect to China, no Nepali leader after King Mahendra had done so much so fast to underscore the shift in our geostrategic locus as Oli did during his first term as prime minister. But when he was dislodged from power after signing those agreements up north, Beijing didn’t lift a finger for him – in the finest tradition of noninterference.
The Chinese have demonstrated that they can use every arrow in their quiver in unsentimental pursuit of their self-interest and still emerge unscathed. The Indians, for their part, have recognized that they are equally damned if they do or don’t. And they still don’t quit.
So who should we really be watching out for? Maybe Oli himself insisted on visiting India first.

Saturday, March 24, 2018

Eew, We’re Not Gonna Take It!

Boy, are they defensive! And the condescension.
From the almost universal criticism the European Union election observation mission’s final report prompted, you might have expected a tone-down.
In fairness, the EU poll mission has many nice things to say about our recent elections. Yet it’s recommendation pertaining to the “review the impact of the quota system on the ethnic composition of the House of Representatives and provincial assemblies and ensure that measures of affirmative action apply only to groups that are the subject of negative discrimination” was venal enough to hog the headlines. The government, Election Commission, leading political parties and people at large took justified offense.
The two major exceptions were the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) and Federal Socialist Forum, Nepal Chair Upendra Yadav. NEFIN argued that the EU report correctly reflected the reality of Nepal and criticized those criticizing it. Did NEFIN’s stance surprise anyone? Yadav, too, defending the EU statement, adding that such hasty criticism would open Nepal to “serious consequences”. Isn’t this the guy that wants to join the Oli government so bad but just doesn’t seem able to?
The prevailing wisdom, though, is this: At best, the EU poll mission clumsily overstepped its mandate. Worse, it is plotting to sow new discord here when we finally seem to have reached somewhere.
The European Union – and its predecessors – has been a generous benefactor to Nepal over the decades. In recent years, it has been quite candid about its expectations from us. The final years of the Maoist insurgency provided the EU with the opportunity to zero in on ethnicity and inclusion as its distinct agenda here. As long as it served their interests, the Maoists and other political parties went along with the Europeans.
While Nepal’s immediate neighbors voiced frustration at EU meddling and began blaming it in large part for the open-ended nature of our transition, official Nepal kept largely quiet. This must have impressed upon our EU friends the depths of the silence silver and sponsorship could procure.
Average Nepalis, however, were getting flummoxed by the day. Here is an organization that is so steadily centralizing authority in Brussels that one country has voted to get out and a few others are quietly contemplating doing so. Yet the EU wants Nepalis to devolve even what they don’t have. Almost a resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire in many ways, the EU wants us to prove our commitment to newness by doing as they demand.
Germany and France have always been writing the EU script. As it suits them. After all, didn’t Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterrand legitimize the partyless Panchayat system during the Cold War by visiting us when Khas-Aryas in the Nepali Congress and communist parties were languishing in jail or exile?
They Europeans like to experiment and we’ve long allowed ourselves to become a laboratory. We’re growing sick and tired but the EU is getting ever more emboldened. In the midst of today’s Trumpian vacuum, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron see themselves as the prime custodians of the liberal world order. They want to punch above their weight. But Nepal is a bit too far away and in terrain contested by other global wannabes.
So the Europeans get mad at us, not them. The recommendations were provided in a spirit of partnership, the EU poll mission said in its defense, once the scale of Nepali outrage became apparent. It’s up to Nepal to take them, the statement’s drafters couldn’t resist adding.
Did our collective scream of disgust sound like we were going to take them?

Saturday, March 17, 2018

Visiting Rights And Wrongs

Our sparkling-new Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali’s eagerness to have the Chinese and Indian leaders visit Nepal this year is understandable. Few Nepalis would quibble with Gyawali’s assertion that such high-level visits would help not only to strengthen bilateral relations but also to secure new avenues of cooperation.
Maila Baje feels there is a more immediate imperative, though, now that our prolonged political transition has come to a close. If Prime Minister K.P. Oli’s government could pull off visits by Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi this year, it would provide a much-needed psychological boost to the nation.
Say what you will about the bad old days, but we certainly didn’t have any shortage of visiting foreign leaders, some of them even luminaries of their times. Dictators and democrats, we were an equal-opportunity destination. Sure, Nepalis were forced to line the streets and wave those flags for hours on. But, as you look back, you can’t deny that, at some deep level, it felt good to be alive. How wonderful it would have been if such bright spots of those ‘dark days’ simply endured.
Make no mistake. We’ve had our share of foreign dignitaries visiting Nepal over the last 28 years. Democracy made us a little inward looking. Post-Cold War international realignments cast us to the sidelines. Given India’s predominant role in the changes of 1990 and 2006, perhaps political itineraries were bound to be skewed in one direction. But things went a bit too far. Our leaders turned political supplicants in the guise of medical treatment and pilgrimages. For junior leaders of factions within Indian political parties, Nepal became a proving ground.
We were sore when Indian prime ministers stayed away for so long but expected to be the first to host each incoming Nepali leader. When Indian prime ministers did start visiting again, we wondered where all those people leading the rest of the world were. Somebody somewhere must have had some time for us. When Pakistan’s prime minister arrived on such short notice to such high state honors, our collective response was striking: it was almost as if our army band was paying tribute to Nepalis.
News that Prime Minister Modi might visit Nepal this year emerged a few weeks ago in the Indian news media. Xi, for his part, has been enticing us with the promise of a visit for far too long. So much so that it looks like the Chinese are anxiously seeking commitments and undertakings that we are equally anxiously avoiding.
It’s not as if we’re going to get a Donald Trump or a Vladimir Putin here anytime soon. So, Mr. Gyawali, just press on with your preparatory work on getting Xi and Modi here this year. Let’s not get bogged down in who gets here first. A joint Xi-Modi visit could be contemplated, if we’re up to it logistically. If not, let them come in reasonably rapid succession to maintain the momentum.
We’ll think about about strengthening relations and securing new avenues of cooperation after that. If such a seemingly antithetical approach helped us build the internal underpinnings of a ‘new Nepal’, it might work just fine on the external front.

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Flashback: Get Back To Where You Once Belonged...

If the expression ‘damp squib’ can be associated most aptly with any political formation in Nepal, it has to be the Naya Shakti of Baburam Bhattarai.
Indeed, the dude himself has been remarkably candid about the dud his organization has become. So you would have expected Dr. Bhattarai to be a wee bit sympathetic to calls for a homecoming. But, no, the one-time Maoist ideologue has shut the door on going back to the once-formidable Maoists.
Now, you could easily sympathize with Dr. Bhattarai here. It’s not as if Maoist Centre chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ is anxious to vacate the party leadership in favor of Bhattarai. For his part, the Naya Shakti chief, whatever the disaster his decision to break away in September 2015 may have turned out to be, is not too keen to return to the veep slot.
Moreover, Dahal’s unity appeal was directed to the Mohan Baidya- and Netra Bikram Chand-led groups as well. Truth be told, for Dr. Bhattarai, that might have been the real ultimate insult.
The Naya Shakti chief’s almost visceral instinct for distinctiveness was also apparent in the botched merger with the Federal Socialist Forum-Nepal (FSF-N) led by Upendra Yadav. Dr. Bhattarai’s explanation for the last-minute breakdown earlier this month is a bit bizarre. Naya Shakti espouses federalism, he said, while the FSF-N supports ‘federal socialism’. This is akin to splitting hairs, unless Dr. Bhattarai wants us to believe he isn’t too keen on federalism anymore.
Also, if there were differences on “some ideological and political issues” besides the party’s name and organizational issues – as Dr. Bhattarai suggested the other day – then wasn’t Naya Shakti’s decision to contest the local elections on the FSF-N symbol an act of duplicity.
Dr. Bhattarai also says the FSF-N is “reluctant” to transform itself into a new force. But isn’t that the exact thing people leaving Naya Shakti have been accusing the party of?
It’s one thing to oppose ‘careerism’ and advocate ‘good governance’ philosophically. Practically, you need to do more than going after the Chinese company building a hydro plant and demand the scalp of the water resources minister who let it in.
So here’s the deal, Dr. Bhattarai, coz this sure ain’t working. Step back two steps or even three and recall where you were before you joined the Maoists (or formed it). Doesn’t it feel like you’re almost back there after parting ways with Dahal and Co?
Admit it, your best days were with Dahal, as his deputy. Sure, you two never got along. That was the beauty of it. Each of you could craft ideologically laced but seemingly incoherent charge sheets that we took as prose of profundity and watch you duke it out.
Clearly, Dahal misses you a lot. Deep down, you seem to, too, if not specifically the man then all those moments with him. So what if you have to step down a notch? Do it for us.
 
Originally posted on Saturday, July 29, 2017

Saturday, March 03, 2018

Nepali Congress: Conundrum Of Change

Amid the banality of the dump-on-Deuba campaign within the Nepali Congress, Krishna Prasad Sitaula’s remarks merit closer examination.
You can hardly quibble with Sitaula’s prediction at a public function the other day that the party would threaten its existence if it failed to adjust to the changing times. His stress on the need for an ideological discussion, too, resonates well in the organization and beyond.
Sitaula’s remark that Nepal’s communist parties work just for partisan interests and do not care about the welfare of the nation could be construed as an attempt to prejudge the wisdom of the electorate. But, then, everyone has a right to his or her opinion. Still, you are forced to wonder how different things might have turned out had such wisdom guided Sitaula during the royal takeover of 2005-2006 and its immediate aftermath.
It might be an exaggeration to say that Sitaula singlehandedly turned the Nepali Congress into an adjunct of the Maoists. But it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch. Having virtually monopolized the time and attention of an ailing Girija Prasad Koirala, Sitaula was often characterized as merely doing the bidding of certain external quarters in a grand experiment.
He brought Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ from his hideout into full public glare. He was credited with devising the deal that led king Gyanendra to handover his crown and scepter and vacate Narayanhity Palace for Nagarjun. If anything, he was the embodiment of change. Sure, he had his critics. But they chose to remain quiet, at least publicly.
Sitaula’s defeat at the hands of the single triumphant candidate representing the old order, if you will – Rajendra Lingden of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal – must rank among the cruelest ironies of Nepali political history. A defeat, moreover, that was predicated on the joint strength of the Unified Marxist-Leninist and Maoist factions of the communists.
The double whammy may go one to explain Sitaula’s latest tirade against our communists’ true motives. But our focus here is on the change he and others expect the Nepali Congress to undergo.
Since Nepal’s self-proclaimed sole democratic party cannot out-red the communists in any shape, manner or form, meaningful change must come from a different direction. What might that be? The feasibility of doubling down on centrism has diminished ever since the party severed its identification with constitutional monarchy. Globalization and its discontents have rendered full-blown fealty to capitalism and liberal internationalism unworkable. Even if the Nepali Congress were to abandon its democratic-socialist tag, it would be hard-pressed to fare any better than its principal rivals with their communist label.
As to Trumpian populism, it does not go together well with centrism, unless you are willing to keep the people guessing who you really are. A party intent on building upon its impressive organizational legacy cannot afford to let individual idiosyncrasies govern its outlook and approach.
A rightwing drift can be premised on the Nepali Congress’ open espousal of Hinduism. But the party’s DNA does not seem structured that way, notwithstanding the exertions of Messrs. Khum Bahadur Khadka and Co. The party’s genesis, orientation and persona preclude rightwing nativism, especially concerning the geopolitical directions of our open borders.
If the Nepali Congress truly desires ideological rejuvenation, there can be few routes beyond a return to espousing constitutional monarchy as a means of preserving tradition and pursuing modernity. Any half measures, such as splitting the national party and parliamentary party leaderships, would remain precisely that.
Politics is the art of the possible. Should an opportunity present itself to the Nepali Congress for a precipitous and unexpected ascension to power, why open future fault lines in the name of soul-searching today?  If Sher Bahadur Deuba is indeed the problem, throw him out and elected a new leader who can be entrusted with both the party presidentship and premiership with new vigor.
Unwittingly perhaps, Sitaula may have delineated one more course of action. If Nepali communists do indeed work only for partisan interests and do not care about national welfare, then the Nepali Congress can simply sit back long enough in the hope of bouncing back. An easy approach – and the one most likely to be taken, too.