It’s Because We’re Still Around

In this case, the messenger was more important than the message.
When prominent neurosurgeon Dr. Upendra Devkota claimed the other day that Christian missionaries funded Nepal’s communist revolution, he didn’t break new ground.
Ever since we turned secular, Nepalis have been wondering what hit us. Or, more to the the point, how whatever hit us did hit us. In recent years, the debate has sharpened to the point where no one can even claim credit for having thrown out Hinduism together with the monarchy from the basic law of the land.
That someone of Dr. Devkota’s stature said so cuts both ways (pardon the pun).
On the one hand, for some, his inclusion in King Gyanendra’s first handpicked cabinet was ‘payback’ for his ‘cooperation’ at the military hospital on the night of the Narayanhity Carnage.
On the other, Dr. Devkota demonstrated early on as minister his no-nonsense demeanor when it came to matters of statecraft. He famously called the constitution a piece of paper if it could not embody the hopes and aspirations of the people.
The love-hate relationship between Christians and Hindus was established with the founding of the modern Nepali state. Among the first things of King Prithvi Narayan Shah, who asserting the country’s status as the real Hindustan, was the expulsion of the community of Capuchin missionaries. Interaction among different civilizations had positive and negative elements in the 18th century, as the Qing and Mughal courts both knew. When overt interference became the dominant creed of the purveyors of an alien faith, it produced a reaction locally. When the dispossessed and dislodged went into exile, they found well-oiled allies, leaving the rulers in Kathmandu in eternal attentiveness.
With the opening up of Nepal in the 1950s, the resurgent royals were driven by the same love-hate imperative. The Jesuits almost became a fraternity of their own because they lay low politically (or so we thought), while educating some of us. However, other Catholics and those professing rival branches of Christianity were on the state watch list.
Media in Kathmandu and the Vatican covered King Birendra’s one-on-one with Pope John Paul II as if it was some kind of concord of civilizations. The imperative was purely geostrategic. Nepal was still among the half a dozen countries or so where it was impossible to spread the Good News.
The Church is a corporate structure where the bosses strategize how they can get the best possible deal for their congregation. Religion may be the ultimate good, but there are trade-offs and detours. As an institution that once ruled much of what it held under its sway, the Church is also master of self-preservation.
Thus the Church funded the anti-Soviet jihadists in Afghanistan against the godless Communists with ease. If the Russians ever became free to worship, they had their own Orthodox Church, whose resurgence was a no-no anyway. It may be easier to understand things if we consider the European Union the latest successor to the Holy Roman Empire.
At least Pope Francis is honest about his institutional role. A true votary of the liberation theology of 1980s Latin America, he rails against capitalism with the élan of a Marxist. When the issue of genocide of Christians in the Middle East comes up, he pays little beyond lip service.
Coming to Dr. Devkota’s other point, why has Hinduism become the target of all other religions? Here’s a thought: every other faith emerged as an alternative to Hinduism. But we’re still around in great numbers. That must grate upon a lot of souls.

Waiting Forever For ‘The One’

The anticipation has been excruciating enough. For us, if not for him.
How much longer must we consider Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli our premier in waiting?
The Nepali New Year appearance of
When the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) leader emerged aloft Dharahara to mark the Nepali New Year, the appearance was supposed to have marked the apogee of his pre-premier tenure. Instead, nature turned furious and toppled that tower, and much else.
The post-quake agreement that led to the issuance of the first draft of the Constitution seemed predicated on Oli’s anointment. But something seems to have happened somewhere. Prime Minister Sushil Koirala doesn’t sound like someone about to throw in the towel, does he?
Ever since the last election, Oli has become indispensable to the success of UML, eclipsing party rivals such as Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhal Nath Khanal and Bam Dev Gautam. Afflicted by an identity crisis since its birth, the party is struggling to maintain its relevance between the Nepali Congress and the Maoists. The eggheads in the party are eternally deploying their entire erudition to craft a coherent party platform conforming to the times.
It doesn’t seem to matter that Oli spends half his time in the hospital or in convalescence somewhere here or abroad. Worse, we don’t know what it is that really ails him. Yet, his party – at least a substantial chunk of it – sees in Oli its savior.
During the years of royal assertiveness, Oli seemed to have a soft spot for the palace. At one point, Madhav Nepal had to cut short a visit abroad to restrain Oli from joining the royal cabinet (even as its head).
Once the Maoists entered the mainstream, Oli was one of the few luminaries of the Seven Party Alliance who consistently questioned the former rebels’ commitment to peace and democracy.
When then-Prime Minister Khanal awarded the home portfolio to Maoist leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara while Oli was out of the country, Oli returned home to describe the move as a conspiracy against the party. But, then, others had indulged in far worse demagoguery.
To be sure, Oli’s background and experience make him a credible candidate for the party leadership. That he has so energized the rank and file is a tribute to his leadership qualities. But what about the rest of us? Don’t we need to know why he’s been in the waiting room so long?
There are suggestions that the ‘establishment’ faction in India is against the 16 Point
Agreement and is speaking through the Madhesi parties. But we don’t know the exact configuration of the ‘establishment’, do we?
With Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chairman Mohan Baidya having turned against China for its Lipu-lekh transgressions, the extreme left seems likely to have a say in who becomes what.  If Oli has suddenly turned suspicious of Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, you can’t blame him. Dahal, after all, has a propensity for weighing the personal and political with exactitude. And he is scheduled to leave on an official trip to India.
Oli is, therefore, compelled to continue providing lip service to the UML’s alliance with the Nepali Congress. For now, setting deadline upon deadline for the formal promulgation of the Constitution has become his way of preserving of maintaining frontrunner status.

You Say You Want A Constitution…

Gee, our politicos turned out to be cannier than we ever considered giving them credit for.
They want to give us that long-delayed constitution so bad that it will now be our fault if we don’t get it sooner rather than later.
Before the Great Earthquake, it seemed as if our Constituent Assembly members were intent on prolonging their term in office, persuaded that were inured to their ineptitude.
After the disaster struck, the entire political fraternity disappeared, knowing the little they could have done in the circumstances. After all, their specialty lay in shutting down the city, not opening up its blocked arteries and alleyways.
Ordinary people rallied together in a spontaneous demonstration of collective action, drawing the admiration of those near and far. We almost got comfortable with the notion that Nepal could do without politicians.
Then the 16-Point Agreement took us by surprise. Was the political class so shaken out of its stupor so as to demonstrate its relevance? Or did the earthquake precipitate just enough geopolitical shifts to advance the political agenda? Regardless, the Supreme Court’s interim intervention did not stop the scribes. Nor did President Ram Baran Yadav’s admonition. The document will be ready for public unveiling any day now, considering that the draft has been all but finalized.
In retrospect, the political class made a smart calculation. A constitution no one likes is likelier to be acceptable to everyone for the time being. The Great Earthquake shifted the national conversation and concern. To be sure, the Big Four want to become part of a national government. But they seem patient enough to wait until after the constitution has been promulgated. Now, isn’t that forbearance a sign of finality?
After the international donor conference, Nepal needs to press ahead with reconstruction. Nepal’s is the first major natural disaster to have occurred since the United Nations Disaster Reduction Conference held in Sendai earlier this year. Japan, the host country, has said Nepal would test the commitments the international community made there.
The amount pledged at the Kathmandu conference varies from $3 billion to $6 billion, with $4.4 billion being the widely accepted figure. Still, no portion of those billions will start trickling out until we prove our worthiness by, among other things, strengthening efficiency, transparency and accountability in handling international assistance, we’ve heard from experts and analysts.
That, in turn, would depend on ensuring political stability, organizing early local elections, and completing the constitution drafting process.
So it all boils down to this: We can contemplate amending the lousiest constitution only when we have one in place.

Hard Bargain Or Soft Sell?

From the scorn they have heaped on the Supreme Court for having stayed implementation of the 16-Point Agreement, you could be forgiven for thinking that the four major parties were actually on the verge of promulgating the constitution this time.
The surprise June 8 deal had generated a generally upbeat vibe, especially among those most intent to underscore the relevance of the frayed 12-Point Agreement that set forth our nine-year journey into nebulous newness.
India, however, was said to have been displeased by the surprise the Big Four sprung on us. If so, New Delhi did a good job of hiding its feelings, because it took Nepali analysts a few days to see signs of annoyance.
Now, if New Delhi was indeed miffed by its apparent displacement from the driver’s seat, what better way to express itself than through the Supreme Court? More importantly, though, why should India want to scuttle a new constitution that would have marked the culmination of the 2005 Delhi Compromise?
Granted, the rulers in New Delhi today represent a different political ideology than the one espoused by the regime that forged the Maoist-mainstream opposition against the monarchy. But, as the largest opposition then, those at the helm in India today did go along with the myths spun then, didn’t they?
So could India’s supposed irritation stem from a discovery that it was leading from behind in Nepal, as in the case of the creation of the Jhal Nath Khanal government a few years ago? Prime Minister Narendra Modi must have taken it personally that Nepal became the first neighbor to burn his effigy, and that, too, after having mounted a rescue and relief operation.
The open secret before the Great Earthquake was that India was engaging in negotiations with the former king, who had pitched his tent in New Delhi for an extended stay. Just before the devastation, too, a leading Chinese expert on Nepal had ruled out the restoration of monarchy in any shape, manner or form, in what was by far the most candid articulation of Beijing’s feelings on an institution we all believed it had nurtured and sustained.
The Bharatiya Janata Party, according to some reports, had resurrected the terms India had presented Kings Birendra and Gyanendra in 1990 and 2006 respectively in exchange for a restoration of the monarchy.
Despite the much-hyped alignment between Beijing and New Delhi on matters concerning Nepal, could the Chinese have acted in concert with other powers seeking to thwart a return of the monarchy and sprung up the 16-Point Agreement?
Or did elements within India, deliberately or otherwise, seek to undo a deal in such a way that would pile pressure not only on the former king but the ruling and opposition parties as well? In that case, the Supreme Court’s intervention may have bought New Delhi the time to identify the best deal.
But if we really want to be hopeful, this could also be a chance for Nepalis to secure the best bargain geostrategically possible.

A Love-Hate Relationship, Indeed

In less than a year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi turned from an adorable novelty to a self(ie)-seeking ogre. And all it took was the Great Earthquake.
Some Nepalis saw India’s alacritous aid dispensation a diabolic lack of altruism.
The Indian media did not help matters by acting as if Nepal were an adjunct of the federal government in New Delhi or that somehow the earthquake offered the perfect opportunity to shed any semblance of sensibility during person-on-the-street sessions.
But Modi didn’t seem perturbed by his blazing effigies. Not only has he promised to wipe every Nepali tear, he has cited cooperation with China on rescue and relief as a model of strategic cooperation between the Asian giants.
It didn’t take long for the international media to detect regional rivalries hover over Nepal. But something more expansive seems to be going on.
The development community sees people-driven dynamics as a harbinger of change. Statists see in the post-disaster official turmoil the need for centralized control. The political class stood out of the way of the plethora of other players because they could have neither led nor followed. After all, shutting down the country through mass mobilization for political gains is far easier than opening up roads and city squares in the aftermath of nature’s fury.
The international goodwill for Nepal was manifested during the five-yearly review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations, where virtually every high-level speaker prefaced his or her homily with expressions of support and solidarity for Nepal. Fundraising became such a popular cause that international law-enforcement agencies had to start warning everyone to beware of crooks.
Three weeks and a second earthquake later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution urging more concerted international action over the short, medium and long term and across a variety of areas. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, lamenting the underfunding of the $423 million flash appeal, sung the praises of Nepal Army and police personnel.
During the post-adoption explanations of vote, countries big and small scrambled to assert what they had done for Nepal and Nepalis. The European Union alone sought progress on the constitutional front as part of durable post-disaster recovery. Otherwise, it was here’s-what-we’ve-done time.
Cuba and the United Arab Emirates didn’t want to be left out as India, China, the United States and United Kingdom detailed the scope and extent of their engagement. Of the Big 5, only the Russian Federation sat out the back-patting fest. 
From the South Asian region, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Afghanistan let India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan speak as forcefully as they could. China took pride in the fact that Nepal saw the first overseas deployment of People Armed Forces.
So where are we? Since this was the first major natural disaster to strike since the international agreement on disaster risk reduction was reached in Sendai in March (although Vanuatu was hit by a typhoon on the first day the conference opened), the urgency to act superseded any ambiguities associated with the international commitment to undertake a resilient recovery approach.
If Modi considered the Nepali reaction to India’s assistance rather irksome, he was prudent in exhibiting patience. When the international spotlight fades and fatigue sets in the rest of the world, the heavy lifting would still be needed.
It’s called a love-hate relationship for a reason.