Submit your Article

After the restoration of democracy in 1990, investigating corruption scandals and major crimes through high-level probe panels has been a recurrent practice in Nepal. These panels have ostensibly yielded reports advising government action, yet these documents have largely remained hidden from the public eye, and their recommendations conspicuously unheeded.

In some disconcerting instances, these very panels have appeared to function as protective shields for high-profile individuals entangled in corruption and other ignoble scandals.

This prompts a glaring question: why form such so-called high level probe commission and to what end? Also, what is the point of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), the constitutionally mandated body meant for probing corruption cases?

On Wednesday, political parties represented in the Federal Parliament decided to form yet another high-level panel, this time to investigate all known and unknown gold smuggling incidents. The decision is connected with the gold trafficking incident that took place via Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu last month. 

The Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) of Nepal Police is tasked with the investigation of the case, but the main opposition, CPN-UML, looks askance, insisting on a separate high level commission for a fair inquest. The party resorted to obstructing the parliamentary proceedings to press its demand, and the ruling coalition parties led by CPN (Maoist Center) eventually relented.     

Prominent legal figure and former Supreme Court Justice Balaram KC has emphatically criticized this cross-party consensus, deeming it a grievous misstep that threatens to establish a harmful precedent. He says formation of a high level probe commission must be reserved in the case of an unprecedented and complex incident. “Gold smuggling is not a new event in the annals of crime that have taken place in Nepal.”

KC fears that this approach of forming high level probe commissions might be applied to even minor issues in the future. And since this time-honored practice has repeatedly failed, he casts doubt on the prospects of this fresh commission diverging from its predecessors.

The latest agreement to create a new commission comes with the appointment of a sitting judge to lead the inquiry. The commission, formed under the legal purview of the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1969, is slated to commence its operations on 22nd September.

Section 3 (3) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act provisions that the Judicial Council will recommend a sitting justice to lead the commission. Section 4 of the Act elaborates on the commission's functions, duties, and powers. 

As per the Act, the commission can be given more authority if required. According to Section 5 (a), if the commission has reasonable grounds to believe that any item or document pertinent to the investigation is in possession of a person or situated in a specific place, it can conduct searches, adhering to prevailing laws. The commission can authorize a gazetted officer to execute searches and, if located, seize relevant items or documents, or procure full or partial copies of such documents.

The commission also holds the prerogative to penalize non-compliance with its directives or extend clemency.  Notably, the commission's mandate pertains not only to gold smuggling through Kathmandu airport but also encompasses a separate case involving the illicit transportation of gold concealed within e-cigarettes. In the latter case, former Home Minister and Vice-chairman of CPN (Maoist Center), Krishna Bahadur Mahara, and his son Rahul have been implicated. It was revealed in the investigation carried out by the CIB of Nepal Police that the father-son duo had repeatedly held telephone conversations and met the Chinese national involved in gold smuggling.

The formation of this commission, operating under the imprimatur of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, vests it with considerable jurisdiction. Beyond influencing policy matters, the commission possesses authority to conduct rigorous investigations, encompassing inquiries, depositions, and searches relating to gold smuggling offenses. Earlier, the ruling parties, particularly the Maoist Center, was reluctant to form the inquiry commission, fearing its authority to summon even high-ranking officials, including the prime minister and ministers, for statements.

The Maoist-led coalition government had to acquiesce to the demand for a powerful commission to probe the gold smuggling case, after the opposition UML and primary coalition partner, Nepali Congress, pressed Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal. 

UML and Congress are not pleased with the arrest of their senior leaders and former ministers—Top Bahadur Rayamahi and Bal Krishna Khand respectively—in connection to another case. Now with one of the Maoist senior leaders implicated in the gold smuggling incident, UML and Congress want the prime minister to take strong action, even if that means arresting his own party leader.  

These developments have also engendered a palpable schism between the coalition partners Maoists and Congress. However, skeptics argue that the latest commission formed to investigate the gold smuggling incident will not bear any fruit. As history has borne witness, a litany of investigative commissions has been convened to scrutinize diverse incidents and irregularities, without any action.

These encompass tragic occurrences like the Dasdhunga accident and the Royal Palace massacre, as well as inquiries into procurement discrepancies, medical supply mismanagement, land allocation issues, and the procurement of wide-body aircraft. Despite the painstaking efforts of such commissions, the ultimate fate of their reports has invariably been obscurity.

However, retired police officer Hemanta Malla Thakuri contends that the prudent course would be to constitute high-level panels following the culmination of Nepal Police investigations. 

“While police investigations are primarily concerned with criminal dimensions, multifarious bureaucratic and political intricacies necessitate a broader investigative ambit,” he says.

Nepal’s transitional justice process has been a long and frustrating saga, seemingly without a foreseeable conclusion. As the two key commissions tasked with investigating war-era human rights abuses—Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons—languish without leadership, victims and international observers alike are grappling with uncertainty.

Rishi Poudel,  the TRC undersecretary, says the commission’s works are at a complete standstill in the absence of its chair and other members. 

The TRC has registered 64,000 complaints from the conflict victims, and has so far managed to muster preliminary investigations for around 4,000 cases. Around 3,000 cases have been left in abeyance due to a lack of concrete evidence. 

Similarly, the CIEDP, tasked with addressing enforced disappearances, has received a total of 3,288 complaints. Out of these, 277 were transferred to the TRC, 292 were put on hold, 136 complaints were found to be duplicative, and 48 cases were resolved. Presently, the commission grapples with 258 active complaints.

Suman Adhikari, a conflict victim, laments that the TRC has slipped down the priority list of the coalition government, instead it is being used as a bargaining chip by political parties. “We are expecting a public statement from top three leaders of major parties Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) expressing their commitment to TRC and apology for the delay,” he says.

Beyond the immediate vacuum in leadership, a newly tabled bill has thrust the situation into the spotlight. The bill, introduced on March 9 this year, seeks to amend the Enforced Disappearance Inquiry and Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act of 2014. But it is a contentious move, one that has roused skepticism from both victims and the global community alike. Critics are quick to point out the bill's potential shortcomings, raising questions about its capacity to comprehensively address the multifaceted challenges at hand. 

The amendment’s hurried unveiling followed Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s startling statement, where he took ownership of the deaths of 5,000 individuals during the insurgency.

While registering the bill in the House of Representatives, Minister for Information and Communications Rekha Sharma had said, “The transitional justice Act needs to be amended to address a range of human rights violations, and to prosecute those individuals implicated in serious crimes.”

But victims of conflicts and the international community are not convinced. They say if enacted, the law would prevent the investigation of crimes including rape, murder, torture, war crimes and crime against humanity that were committed during the conflict.

Despite glimmers of optimism, such as provisions examining the conflict's root causes and securing reparations for victims, the United Nations experts have voiced concerns that the amendments, if adopted, could inadvertently provide sanctuary for perpetrators of grave crimes committed between 1996 and 2006. This criticism not only spotlights a potential breach of international obligations but also underscores a discord with Nepal's own Supreme Court rulings.

The plight of conflict victims is both a somber reminder of the past and a call for urgent action. The government's recent extension of the commissions' tenure until mid-January 2024 serves as a temporary reprieve, but victims remain undeterred in their pursuit of justice. 

In their ‘Kathmandu Declaration’, the victims have accused the government and major political parties of disregarding the commitments outlined in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed on 21 Nov 2006. 

“Had the government and political parties been serious, we wouldn’t have to wait for so long to get justice,” say the victims. “It’s been eight years since the formation of the two transitional justice bodies, but they remain largely inert and without key office bearers.” 

The conflict victims have also accused the government and political parties of registering the amendment bill by bypassing the parliamentary sub-committee that was tasked with the responsibility of preparing the amendment proposal. 

Criticizing the removal of the definition of forced disappearance from the bill, the victims have urged the government to include the definition, which is in the existing Act. They say many families don't even know the status of their missing loved ones, whether they are dead or alive. 

Likewise, they have sought provisions for compensating victims of torture, sexual violence and conflict-related atrocities, as well as return of the seized properties. The conflict victims have also called for changes in the proposed appointment procedure for officials in the transitional justice commissions. 

“Since past experiences have proved that the existing procedure is faulty, the government should make sure that the committee formed to recommend officials in the commissions should be credible, independent and fair,” they say. 

Furthermore, the conflict victims have demanded retroactive application of legislation to ensure that the perpetrators of serious crimes committed in the past are brought to justice. They have also suggested formation of a special court to handle transitional justice cases through the process similar to the establishment of a high court, rather than forming a three-member Special Court on the recommendation of the judicial council. 

The victims have also demanded for immediate implementation of the second national action plan for UN Security Council Resolutions No 1325 and 1820, which pertain to women, peace, and security. 

They have denounced the controversial amendment proposal to the Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 as well. The proposal, recently tabled  in the Parliament, allows for the withdrawal of ongoing criminal cases involving serious human rights violations. 

As Nepal grapples with its past, navigating the arduous terrain of transitional justice, the nation's commitment to lasting accountability is poised for examination.

The fate of the TRC and the CIEDP, intertwined with political dynamics and international responsibilities, represents the crucible in which Nepal's dedication to justice is being forged. The agony of victims, spanning realms from economic deprivation to emotional distress, underscores the gravity of the challenge—a challenge that can only be overcome with political will and steadfastness.

At present, several vital bills languish in the Federal Parliament awaiting approval. In the lineup, there is a bill seeking to amend the Prevention of Money Laundering Act-2008, another aiming to reshape the Truth and Reconciliation Act, and a comprehensive bill to revise dozens of laws.

This parliamentary logjam underscores a larger issue of functional hindrance. But it does not stop there. The vision for Nepal's federal structures hinges on the formulation of pertinent laws, yet progress seems mired in stagnation. Altogether there are 25 crucial bills stuck in both houses of the Federal Parliament.

For a month now, the main opposition, CPN-UML, has obstructed the parliament proceedings demanding for a high-level investigation panel to look into the gold smuggling case from Tribhuvan International Airport. The ruling parties have refused to form such a panel, deepening the impasse.

The déjà vu of stalled parliamentary proceedings is not new. Over the years, Nepal's Parliament has become a pawn in the hands of a select few top leaders from major parties—CPN-UML, Nepali Congress, and CPN (Maoist Center). In this precarious power dynamic, ordinances have emerged as a crutch for lawmaking in the absence of parliamentary cooperation.

Critics decry Nepal's Parliament as a rubber stamp wielded by a handful of influential leaders. The casualty in this power play is the legislative process itself, casting a shadow over the primary function of Parliament. Only one citizenship-related bill and a handful of budget-related bills have crossed the parliamentary threshold since the general elections of December last year.

The parliamentary speaker's role, too, has been controversial in recent years. Past speakers Krishna Bahadur Mahara and Agni Sapkota faced accusations of partisan bias, foregoing impartiality. The strained relationship between former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Speaker Sapkota reached its zenith when the latter refused to present America's Millennium Corporation Challenge agreement in Parliament. Current Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire is also under scrutiny for favoring his party, UML, rather than playing the role of a non-partisan arbiter.

The level playing field within Parliament has tilted toward the gravitational pull of political parties. Everyday parliamentary proceedings now rest on the tripartite consensus among Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal of Maoist Center, Sher Bahadur Deuba of NC, and KP Sharma Oli of UML. Meanwhile, smaller parties have seen their influence marginalized.

Top-tier agreements made in Baluwatar among the leaders of these three major parties become binding for Parliament. The speaker's role in mitigating the parliamentary impasse has turned ineffectual.

The art of obstructing Parliament, it appears, has been perfected to a science. A recurrent tactic involves ransoming the legislative process only to agree to its resumption following opaque pacts sealed at Baluwatar. One striking instance revolves around UML's stranglehold on the House, catalyzed by Prime Minister Dahal's remarks concerning an Indian businessman interceding with New Delhi to make him premier. After days of deadlock, UML relented only when Dahal clarified his statements.

This hostage-taking of Parliament by a select few leaders has silenced the voices of lawmakers on critical national matters. The formation of high-level panels and other pressing issues remain stalled as lawmakers are denied their platform.

Experts insist on a lasting solution, suggesting that parties commit to a shared resolution.

Political analyst Geja Sharma Wagle calls for a need to break the cycle of parliament obstruction through commitment among parties to preserve the sanctity of Parliament as a platform for substantive discourse. He says Parliament should be a place for deliberation amidst disagreement.

Subas Nembang, former speaker and UML leader, contends that Nepal's constitution and parliamentary rules failed to anticipate such standstills. While obstruction is not expressly accounted for in legislative provisions, he defends his party’s move by citing a parliamentary precedent for the tactic. Nembang posits that while not explicitly codified, this system obliges the government to address opposition demands when effectively presented.

Daman Nath Dhungana, another former speaker, says the Constituent Assembly's efforts to issue a new constitution have inadvertently sowed the seeds of parliamentary dysfunction. The stranglehold of three dominant political players lives on, perpetuating an environment where political maneuvering takes precedence over governance.

The bad legacy continues, adds Dhungana, with current priorities seeming to center around preserving government, exemplified by Prime Minister Dahal's focus.

The stalemate does not solely impact the full House; it cascades down to the Parliamentary Committees as well. Regarded as mini parliaments, these committees are now relegated to the sidelines, lacking both leadership and a clear agenda. The challenge deepens as committee members grapple with a lack of expertise within their working domains.

The very foundation of democratic governance stands challenged by a recurring cycle of obstruction and partisan strife, which threatens to undermine the nation's progress. It is a disservice committed by the three major parties to the people.

Over a decade ago, Nepal embarked on an earnest mission to fortify journalistic safety and uphold press freedom. A spirited endeavor sought to erect a comprehensive nationwide framework safeguarding the integrity and security of those entrusted with the mantle of holding power accountable. Yet, despite fervent determination and resolute global support, the realization of this noble undertaking remains tantalizingly elusive, emblematic of the chasm between aspiration and realization.

This chronicle finds its genesis in 2012, when Nepal’s vision coalesced into the framework for a journalists’ safety mechanism. Years of meticulous labor culminated in late 2019, with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the custodian of fundamental rights, promulgating protocols harmonized with the tenets of the Human Rights Act of 2012. However, the path from conceptualization to actualization has been punctuated with complexities and challenges.

Despite the concerted support of international organizations, lending their intellectual and financial weight, concrete advancement remains a chimera. Underpinning the stipulated guidelines was a triumvirate of mechanisms, conceived not only to shield journalists but to uphold the bedrock of unbridled expression.

At the epicenter of this vision stands a steering committee, envisaged as the linchpin of the entire edifice. Chaired by a distinguished NHRC member, this committee convenes stakeholders from diverse realms, including the Nepal Bar Association, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Federation of Nepali Journalists, and the Nepal Police.

In 2021, the mantle of coordinating this pivotal committee was bestowed upon NHRC member Manoj Duwady. Yet, substantial progress remains an elusive quarry. Despite three meetings, the initiative languishes in its embryonic state. “Scarce resources, pivotal for the mechanism’s activation, are a critical constraint,” says Duwady.

Nestled within this overarching framework, the inception of a task force within NHRC was envisaged. However, an opaque veil shrouds the mechanics of these mechanisms, leaving stakeholders and the public grappling for clarity. Concurrently, the swift deployment of a rapid response unit, tasked with assuaging the predicaments of local-level journalists ensnared in challenges, remains more an abstract concept than a tangible reality. Regrettably, NHRC's vows remain stuck in the realm of verbal commitments, yet to materialize in the form of a functioning committee.

Laxman Datt Pant, a proponent of international media rights and chairperson of Media Action Nepal, leaves no room for equivocation in his censure of NHRC’s inertia. “The commission’s avowals to safeguard journalists and uphold the freedom of expression sound increasingly hollow,” he says. “Inaction not only corrodes the institution’s credibility but also underscores a palpable dearth of authentic commitment to the very ideals it professes.”

With a clarion call for action to supplant rhetoric, Pant implores NHRC to translate verbal declarations into palpable efforts, echoing the spirit of the ambitious UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.

Having taken root in 2013, this initiative has garnered international solidarity, with prominent entities like UNESCO and stalwarts from the Nepal International Media Partnership providing vital technical counsel to NHRC.

In the face of NHRC’s assertions of constrained resources, a senior official acknowledges an intriguing absence of outreach to international channels for funding.

Ironically, despite multimillion-dollar investments by international entities, the journalist safety mechanism languishes in a state of inertia. Consequently, journalists grappling with danger at the grassroots level find themselves bereft of the prompt succor they direly require.

Bipul Pokhrel, the chairman of the Federation of Nepali Journalists, says that the operational blueprint of the steering committee remains an open question.

“Deliberations are underway to enhance the efficacy of these mechanisms,” he says. Emphasizing the imperative of inclusive stakeholder representation within the steering committee, Pokhrel underscores the significance of financial underpinning.

“With the mandate to safeguard journalists from tangible threats, financial support stands as a cornerstone. Thus, meticulous groundwork emerges as a decisive determinant in guiding the mechanism to realization.”

As Nepal’s chronicle spans over a decade, its odyssey to safeguard its journalistic guardians emerges as a narrative of soaring ideals tempered by intricate implementation. As stakeholders navigate this intricate terrain, the watchful gaze of the press, human rights advocates, and the global community remains riveted, poised for the transformative juncture when words transmute into resolute action.

Former prime minister and CPN (Unified Socialist) leader Madhav Kumar Nepal cut short his Europe visit to return home after the Supreme Court ordered the authorities to investigate all individuals whose names have been associated in the Lalita Niwas land grab case.

Upon arrival, Nepal told the media that he decided to return to quell the rumor that he fled the country to avoid investigation. He also claimed that he had not taken any bribe when his Cabinet took some decisions concerning the Lalita Niwas property, and that he was willing to help with the investigation. 

The SC order has opened the way for the Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police to investigate the alleged roles of Nepal and another former prime minister, Baburam Bhattarai, in the land misappropriation case. Publicly, top leaders including Nepal have expressed their support to the ongoing investigation. But as more and more politicians are coming under the investigation, top leaders of major political parties are reportedly trying to sabotage the probe.

Soon after returning home, Unified Socialist leader Nepal was involved in a series of meetings with Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba. In these meetings, Nepal reportedly expressed objection over the SC ruling to investigate the former prime ministers and high level government officials. 

Nepal, who believes that the ongoing investigation is ‘politically motivated,’ also held a one-on-one meeting with Deuba. Earlier this week, Deuba also held a meeting with Home Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who has so far maintained that the ongoing investigation into corruption cases should not and will not be influenced by any political party.

Likewise, former prime minister Bhattarai has also expressed displeasure over the SC order. A few days back, he said that there should be an investigation into the alleged corruption that took place during the management of the Maoist cantonment after the party entered the peace process. Of course, Bhattarai was referring to Prime Minister Dahal, chairman of the ruling CPN (Maoist Center). 

The anti-corruption drive launched by the Dahal-led government has sent shockwaves inside major political parties.  As more and more politicians are being dragged into corruption cases, a silent consensus is building among the parties to retard and eventually drop the investigation.  

NC President Deuba in particular is under immense pressure from his party members to protect them from CIB investigation. Congress senior leader and former home minister, Bal Krishna Khand, is already under police custody for his alleged role in the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal. CPN-UML leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi is also under arrest in connection to the same case.

More recently, NC lawmaker Sunil Sharma was also arrested in a case of fake academic certificate distribution. Many NC leaders believe that Prime Minister Dahal has been selectively targeting Congress by opening corruption probes. NC President Deuba, in his recent meeting with Dahal, expressed dissatisfaction over the CIB probe into the fake refugee case and suggested transferring some investigating officers.

The main opposition, UML, has also accused the Dahal government of selectively opening old corruption files to its leaders. A few days back, UML Chairman KP Oli said that Prime Minister Dahal was adopting a ‘Pakistani model’ of arresting opposition leaders on trumped-up corruption charges. 

The ongoing probe into corruption scandals is also gradually creating distance among the ruling coalition partners. The Unified Socialist has already expressed dissatisfaction and is seeking intervention to prevent investigation against its chair Nepal. A rift is also developing between the NC and the Maoists. 

Some NC leaders have even suggested that the party leadership should reconsider its participation in the government, if Dahal continues to target Congress leaders. The NC currently holds nine ministries in the coalition government. However, there is a growing belief among NC leaders and members that the party's influence within the government is waning. Some leaders say that the party should consider forming a new government by aligning with the UML.  

Another coalition partner, the Janata Samajbadi Party (JSP), has also expressed discontent with the government following the decision to initiate investigations into the 2007 Gaur massacre. Though Prime Minister Dahal later assured to halt the investigation, the JSP remains unconvinced.

The anti-corruption scandal took a new turn after a recent ruling by the apex court concerning the Lalita Niwas land grab scandal placed the ruling coalition in a precarious position. In its Aug 7 ruling to probe everyone involved in the Lalita Niwas land grab case, the Supreme Court said that initiating action only against those government officials who executed decisions while sparing the ones who made those decisions would be unjust. The court has ordered the law enforcement agency concerned to investigative the case from the top down. Along with former prime ministers Nepal and Bhattarai, the SC ruling has also paved the way for the CIB to investigate four former ministers and a number of former secretaries.

Meanwhile, the ruling Maoist party itself has found itself in a fix, as its leader Krishna Bahadur Mahara has been dragged into the July 20 gold trafficking case. The main opposition, UML, has demanded for a separate high-level committee to investigate the case. Some leaders within the Nepali Congress have also supported the idea of forming an independent probe panel. But Home Minister Shrestha, from the Maoist party, has said that the CIB itself will look into the case.

Prime Minister Dahal is being criticized for reportedly trying to protect Mahara by refusing to form an independent panel to investigate the gold smuggling case.    

Quotes

KP Sharma Oli: “The government has initiated the politics of revenge. Though the arrest of some individuals is a normal thing, the government is adopting the Pakistani model of politics. If someone speaks against the government, they are arrested on some pretext.”

Baburam Bhattarai: “I am ready to cooperate with the government agencies on Lalita Niwas case. We should form a high-level investigation panel and all corruption-related scandals should be investigated in a fair way. But the government should not use the corruption file as a tool to terrorize political opponents.”  

Madhav Kumar Nepal: “There should be a fair and impartial investigation and I am ready to fully cooperate with the government agencies. I am not involved in any bribery so I am not nervous about it.”

The US Department of State’s Coordinator on Global Anti-Corruption Richard Nephew paid an official visit to Nepal this past week. According to the US embassy in Kathmandu, Nephew discussed with Nepali officials the progress regarding Nepal’s anti-corruption commitment as part of Summit for Democracy, and pledged US commitment to supporting Nepal’s efforts to eradicate corruption.

Nephew’s visit comes at a time when Nepal is investigating some big corruption scandals such as the fake Bhutanese refugee scandal, Lalita Niwas land grab and Kathmandu airport gold trafficking case. The US anti-corruption head also met Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Narayan Kaji Shrestha and the leadership of the Central Investigation Bureau of Nepal Police. 

Fighting corruption is a key component of US foreign policy. In response to ApEx’s email inquiry about Nephew’s visit, a US State Department spokesperson said: “We know as a universal truth that corruption erodes public trust in government and democratic institutions, deepens poverty and inequity, threatens public security, and stifles opportunity and growth.”

“It affects people in virtually every aspect of their daily lives, draining vital resources. That is why President Biden has designated the fight against corruption as a core US national security interest and why Coordinator Nephew’s mission is so important.” 

During his two-day Nepal stay, Nephew met with various Nepali officials  to learn about corruption challenges and to confer on how the US can help address these issues as part of overall Nepal-US partnership.

The US State Department spokesperson said Nephew was not in Nepal to see the progress on any specific case of corruption. In response to ApEx’s inquiry, the spokesperson said: “Just like any allegations of corruption, the current allegations of corruption and the unlawful fabrication of refugee documents in Nepal are concerning.”

This is probably the first time the US has expressed concerns over the fake Bhutanese refugee scam.  

“We understand Nepali authorities are investigating the allegations and hope they will quickly determine what transpired, hold perpetrators accountable, and deter future corruption cases in accordance with the law and the Nepal government’s commitments to transparency and accountability,” said the spokesperson.

“The United States has consistently supported Nepali government and civil society efforts to root out corruption. Transparent investigations into allegations of corruption demonstrate to the Nepali people that no one is above the law.  We commend actions by the Government of Nepal to bring truth to light in accordance with rule of law.”

Between 2007 and 2018, the US has welcomed tens of thousands of Bhutanese refugees formerly residing in Nepal as part of our global commitment to support refugees. The program has since ended, and there were no significant concerns regarding fraudulent activity associated with that resettlement process, said the spokesperson. 

Of late, visiting US officials have been raising corruption eradication as a key agenda to strengthen democracy. Earlier in January, US under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland talked with Nepali politicians about the need to continue fighting corruption.

 The Biden administration in 2021 unveiled the US Strategy on Countering Corruption. In June that year, Biden said that corruption threatens United States national security, economic equity, global anti-poverty and development efforts, and democracy itself. “But by effectively preventing and countering corruption and demonstrating the advances of transparent and accountable governance, we can secure a critical advantage for the United States and other democracies,” he added.  

In Nepal, three corruption scandals—fake refugee scandal, Lalita Niwas land grab and gold smuggling—are under investigation. On the fake refugee case, the CIB has already filed cases against more than one person including former home minister, Bal Krishna Khand, and CPN-UML senior leader Top Bahadur Rayamajhi.
The CIB has also reopened the file on Lalita Niwas land grab case in which two former prime ministers Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai have also been implicated. The CIB is also investigating the gold trafficking case from Kathmandu’s Tribhuvan International Airport in which the involvement of high profile business persons and politicians has been suspected.

Vice President Ram Sahay Prasad Yadav on Monday left for China for a week-long official visit. He is due to attend the Seventh China-South Asia Exposition and twenty-seventh China Kunming Import and Export Fair.  

Vice President Yadav is also expected to hold some high-level talks with Chinese officials. This will be his first foreign visit after his election in March this year. He had expressed his wish to visit India first, but did not get an invitation from the southern neighbor.

China has increased its engagement with Nepal in recent days. There have been increased high-level visit exchanges between both countries, and these visits are not just limited at government-to-government level. Many visits have taken place at the party-to-party level as well. 

Communist Party of China has sent several of its delegation to Nepal and correspondingly, various political parties of Nepal have received invitations from the CPC. The series of visit exchanges between government officials and political party representatives is a clear sign that China accords high priority to Nepal.       

In meetings with Nepali officials, CPC leaders have said that they are willing to enhance cooperation and exchanges with Nepal in agriculture, poverty reduction and education to enrich the relationship between the two countries through subnational exchanges. 

China stepped up its engagement with Nepali parliamentarians as well, mainly after the endorsement of America’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). 

Earlier in June, Chairman of the National Assembly Ganesh Prasad Timilsina visited China where he held talks with his counterpart Zhao Leji and other high-level government officials. Likewise in July, Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Indira Rana-led parliamentary team visited China to attend the Eco Forum Global Guiyang-2023.

Amid flurry of visits, preparations are also underway for Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s visit to China in September. While Beijing has also extended an invite to President Ram Chandra Poudel, he is most likely to visit India first.   

Regarding the possible agenda of Prime Minister Dahal’s upcoming China visit, he has already said that some vital agreements relating to power-trade agreements and bilateral projects would be signed. But some experts say despite Prime Minister Dahal’s plan to sign a power trade agreement with China, it is not feasible. 

Ganesh Karki, chairman of Independent Power Producers’ Association, says after the construction of transmission lines, Nepal could be able to send a small amount of electricity to China, but Nepal’s main market is  India. 

Just like the transit and transport agreement, Dahal may have planned to give a symbolic message, but China cannot become a major market for power trade (see page 4 for detailed report). Of late, Chinese investment in Nepal’s hydropower sector is dwindling, while India has emerged as a dominant player. The Chinese side has been known to express displeasure with the Nepali officials over India’s dominance in Nepal’s energy sector.

For China, the implementation of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Nepal is the key priority area. But there is an unease in Nepal regarding the BRI after China listed Pokhara International Airport as part of the BRI. Nepali ministers have time and again dismissed the Chinese claim, saying that Nepal has yet to execute any project under the BRI.  

Officials say the first priority of Prime Minister Dahal, while talking with Beijing officials, will be to seek China’s concrete position on the BRI. 

Prime Minister Dahal has not spoken much about the BRI in recent days. Previously, he used to say that China should help construct at least one major project as a gift under the BRI.

Tanka Karki, former Nepali ambassador to China, says the prime minister’s imminent China visit should be focused on the implementation of past agreements signed between two countries including the BRI. If there are any problems regarding the implementation of the agreements, Dahal should communicate what those problems are.

The Chinese side has also been stressing the need of implementing the past agreements signed between the two countries during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Nepal visit. But the coalition partners are not on the same page when it comes to engaging with China.

Along with the BRI, China has also been urging Nepal to make commitments on the Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). Experts say the prime minister and government officials should clearly communicate their concerns and positions on these latest initiatives of China, and not rush into signing new agreements. 

There are a lot of agreements from which Nepal can take benefit, says Karki, but the focus should be on their implementation. He is of the view that there is no need of signing new agreements with China when the past agreements have not moved forward. 

Upendra Gautam, general secretary of China Study Center, says Prime Minister Dahal must take China into confidence when it comes to securing Beijing’s core interests, including bilateral territorial security mechanisms for stable trade, transit, transport, agriculture and cultural connectivity. 

Nepal’s longstanding and generally stable ties with China offers Prime Minister Dahal a rare historic opportunity to prove that he is not just a tool in the fractious South Asian politics dominated by India-China rivalry. 

If the prime minister plays his cards right, he can steer Nepal toward the path of prosperity by establishing mutually cooperative and highly reciprocal relationships with immediate neighbors.  

Nepal’s Ambassador to China Bishnu Pukar Shrestha says progress on rail and roadway connectivity are the key priority areas of Nepal which are the bedrock of boosting bilateral trade and investment. 

During Prime Minister Dahal’s China visit, Shrestha says Nepal will request the Chinese side to expedite the China-funded development projects in Nepal. 

He adds signing power trade agreements, increasing Chinese investment and resolving trade bottlenecks are also on the list of priorities. 

Key points for PM Dahal’s China trip

• Projects under BRI
• Bringing Chinese investment
• Implementation of transit and transport agreement
• Connectivity (road and railway)
• Mutual legal assistance
• Power Trade agreement
• Border management
• Removing trade bottlenecks
•  Resumption of joint military drill
• Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative  
• Peace and friendship treaty

In 2014, when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized on the effective implementation of Neighborhood First Policy. Over the past 10 years, it has emerged as a central pillar of India’s overall policy when dealing with its neighbors including Nepal. 

The Indian parliament’s external affairs committee has conducted an in-depth study on the implementation of the policy after consultations with the Ministry of External Affairs and experts, and its report highlights immediate neighbors as “the first circle of priority” in India’s relation with the world. The report also recommends all ministries and departments to approach their engagements with the neighboring countries with a proactive perspective.

According to the committee, the Neighborhood First Policy over the years has achieved benefits like greater regional connectivity, improved infrastructures, stronger development cooperation in various sectors. It has also urged the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure that development projects undertaken in the neighborhood are executed on time by strengthening the joint project monitoring committees and oversight mechanism for monitoring the progress of various development assistance projects.

Only successful implementation of the policy, the report says, requires concerted efforts such as timely execution of development projects and enhancing mutually beneficial cooperation.

The committee has also pointed out the lack of parliamentary exchanges between India and its neighboring countries, which is the key to effective implementation of the Neighborhood First Policy. On open borders, the committee says that anyone who has crossed the border between India’s Uttar Pradesh and Nepal or Bihar and Nepal knows that the cross-border movement is extremely difficult due to the absence of basic infrastructure.  The committee is of the view that India needs to invest massively in upgrading infrastructure—from roads to rail, from land waterways to ports, from energy and telecommunication to digital customs.

Regarding the regional organizations, the committee says that India’s engagement with its neighbors under regional frameworks— such as South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC); Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC); and Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal Motor Vehicle Agreement BBIN— is an important element of India’s Neighborhood First Policy.  

The committee has suggested the Indian government to play a more proactive role both in SAARC and BIMSTEC, and formulate a fresh strategy to keep them active and utilize them whenever the occasion arises. The Modi government, however, is not so keen to revive the SAARC process.

According to the committee’s report, SAARC has a strategic importance, so no member country should be allowed to impede its effective functioning, and that collective efforts need to be made by other member countries to thwart any attempts to destabilize it.

The Indian committee has suggested that the Indian government coordinate among the majority of the member countries ignoring one (Pakistan), so that regional cooperation under SAARC is not hampered due to the lack of the response from one country. 

Addressing the parliament, Union Minister of State for External Affairs Raj Kumar Ranjan Singh recently informed the Indian parliament that India accorded utmost importance to expanding connectivity in its neighborhood and beyond, encompassing all elements of physical, cultural economic and people-to-people linkages. 

India’s Act East Policy, Neighborhood First Policy, Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) and BIMSTEC have strengthened connectivity in the region, he added.

Singh said some of the key connectivity initiatives between India and its neighbors include the BBIN; the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway Initiative; Chabahar Agreement between India, Iran and Afghanistan;, and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor. 

Through Neighborhood First Policy, connectivity, commerce, culture and people-to-people, Singh claimed that linkages with India’s neighbors have been improved.

The Indian parliamentary committee has observed that India’s relations with Nepal have expanded to new initiatives in agriculture, inland waterways, and power sector cooperation.  The Inland waterways between two countries with multi-modal transportation routes via Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh was announced in 2019. Two of the terminals at Varanasi and Sahibgunj have already been completed and work is underway to complete the remaining terminals.

Highlights of the report

• India’s bilateral relations with Nepal have expanded to new initiatives in agriculture, inland waterways, and power sector cooperation. The ‘India Nepal New Partnership’ in Agriculture, which focuses on collaborative projects in agriculture education and R&D, was launched in April 2018.

• The Inland waterways connectivity between India and Nepal with four multi-modal transportation routes via Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh was announced in 2019. Two of the terminals at Varanasi and Sahibgunj have already been completed and work is underway for the completion of remaining terminals.

• The Indian government is in the process of upgrading India-Nepal border trade infrastructure, with an objective to reduce bottlenecks, accelerate clearances and promote the creation of regional economic hubs.

• In view of the importance of cross-border railway link between India and Nepal for strengthening of border infrastructure and greater people to people link, India’s parliament committee for external affairs has urged the Indian government for early operationalization of the ongoing rail link projects and completion of the feasibility study of the proposed Raxaul-Kathmandu broad gauge rail link.

• India’s engagement with its neighbors under regional frameworks like SAARC, BIMSTEC and BBIN is an important element of the Neighborhood First Policy.

• The committee believes while BIMSTEC has emerged as an important regional organization in recent years, not much progress has been made under SAARC due to hurdles created by one member state.

• Though SAARC has made good progress in some areas of cooperation, it has not been able to achieve its full potential as several important connectivity and trade initiatives such as SAARC Motor Vehicle Agreement, SAARC Railways Agreement, Agreement on Regional Air Services, Agreement on Trade in Services, etc. are held up since 2014 due to the lack of consensus among all member states.

• India should take more initiatives for elimination of destabilizing forces like terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, etc. in the region through collective efforts of all neighboring countries.

• The parliamentary committee advises the Indian government to implement the BIMSTEC Master Plan for Transport Connectivity at the earliest.

• The committee is of the opinion that no member country should be allowed to impede the effective functioning of regional forums.