Submit your Article

The head of a communist government claiming a religious figure from ancient mythology for his country was, admittedly, a touch strange. Yet Prime Minister KP Oli seemed to know what he was doing. Unlike in India, religion is proving to be a poor tool for political mobilization in Nepal. Yet when you dare claim the chief deity of the ruling party in India, the traditional hegemon, people at home are bound to notice. Is it possible that Lord Ram was born in Nepal, many of them questioned? As the historicity of Ram’s birth or his birthplace cannot be established, what is the harm in believing that Ram was a fellow Nepali from Thori near Birgunj?  

When the prime minister’s remark had the predictable effect, at least in India, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set out to control the damage. Oli understands a complete rupture with India is also not in his interest. “The remarks made by the Prime Minister are not linked to any political subject and have no intention at all to hurt the feeling and sentiment of anyone,” read the MoFA statement. “As there have been several myths and references about Shri Ram and the places associated with him, the Prime Minister was simply highlighting the importance of further studies and research of the vast cultural geography the Ramayana represents...”

PM Oli’s Bhanu Jayanti speech was miles from ‘highlighting the importance of further studies and research’. Nonetheless, all the political analysts APEX talked to agreed that the prime minister was not taking a stab at religious politics. Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam says the use of religion as a political tool can never be ruled out. Yet he reckons its salience as a political tool is decreasing in Nepal. “Rather than backing for a particular religion, PM Oli’s remark represents a continuation of Mahendra-era nationalism. By raising an issue that was sure to pinch India he was trying to cement his hold in his own party,” Gautam says. 

Senior journalist Dev Prakash Tripathi, who is leading a campaign called ‘Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali’ to restore the Hindu kingdom, says religion came to be politicized in Nepal mainly after the 2006 political changes. Yet the NC district-level leader in Dhading too disclaims the view that Oli’s motive was to drum up support from Nepali Hindus. He says existing political parties have lost people’s trust and they cannot be trusted to take up the sacred issue of Hinduism. 

It was the erstwhile Nepali monarchy that established Hinduism as a state religion. The monarchs wanted to propagate the myth of their holy Hindu lineage, with the reigning monarch projected as no less than an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and as such above the law. In republican Nepal, the country’s democratically elected rulers continue to use religion. The goal this time is to employ the fabled opium of the masses to puff up the rulers’ anti-India nationalist credentials. 

On July 13, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli made a controversial statement over the birthplace of Lord Ram. He accused India of creating an artificial Ayodhya in India, when Ram was actually born in Nepal, in Thori village west of Birgunj.

PM Oli’s statement invited fierce criticism in Nepal and India alike. Leaders of Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in particular were livid.  

After the opposition to PM Oli’s statement escalated in India, Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs tried to tone things down. “The remarks made by the Prime Minister are not linked to any political subject and have no intention at all to hurt the feeling and sentiment of anyone,” read the statement. “As there have been several myths and references about Shri Ram and the places associated with him, the Prime Minister was simply highlighting the importance of further studies and research of the vast cultural geography the Ramayana represents...”

But the prime minister’s claim also resonated with sections of Nepalis who would like to believe a revered deity like Ram was born in their country. Thus, some speculated, Oli really did want to gain the sympathies of the country’s Hindu population.

In India, the Hindu nationalist BJP had come to power for a second term on a strong Hindu nationalist plank. Some espy the emergence of a similar movement in Nepal to challenge its current secular status, perhaps with the help of some senior BJP leaders who have lent their voice in support of a Hindu Nepal.

Currently, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) is the only notable political force in Nepal supporting the restoration of monarchy and Hindu state. But the party has of late struggled as an electoral force, and failed to win a single directly contested seat in the 2017 federal and provincial elections.

There are voices in Nepali Congress, the main opposition, in favor of a Hindu state. In the upcoming general convention scheduled next February, Hinduism could become a prominent agenda. The ruling Nepal Communist Party too professes secularism, yet many of their leaders also have a soft spot for Hinduism. This is perhaps understandable as a sizable chunk of their electorate are devout Hindus. But how big is this support?  

Politically irrelevant

Political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam says the use of religion as a political tool can never be ruled out. Yet he reckons its salience as a political tool is decreasing in Nepal. “Rather than backing for a particular religion, PM Oli’s remark represents a continuation of Mahendra-era nationalism. By raising this issue that was sure to pinch India he was trying to consolidate his hold in his own party,” Gautam avers.

Another political analyst Hari Roka also does not believe the PM’s statement on Ram was intended to please Nepali Hindus but rather “to cover up his failure on both domestic and foreign fronts”. Roka says religion-based politics has already failed in Nepal.

Senior journalist Dev Prakash Tripathi, who is leading a campaign called ‘Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali’ aimed at restoring the Hindu Kingdom, says the issue of religion was politicized in Nepal mainly after the 2006 political changes. Yet the NC district-level leader in Dhading too disclaims the view that Oli’s motive was to drum up support from Nepali Hindus.

“Secularism was not something people had asked for during the second Jana Andolan. Political parties inserted it in the new constitution at the behest of foreign forces,” Tripathi says. Matribhumi ka Lagi Nepali, which has brought together NC leaders and cadres who are in favor of Hindu state, has now launched a signature campaign for the restoration of the Hindu state. He says existing political parties have lost people’s trust and as such cannot take up the issue of Hinduism.

According to him, if a new force takes up revival of Hindu state as a key agenda it will win great support. “I am confident that a new Hindu nationalist party will emerge in Nepal as a large chunk of the Hindu population is unhappy with the country’s secular status,” Tripathi says.

Self-appointed gods

It was the erstwhile Nepali monarchy that established Hinduism as a state religion. This was done as the monarchs wanted to propagate the myth of their holy Hindu lineage, with the reigning monarch being no less than an avatar of Lord Vishnu, and as such above the law.

The democratic constitution of Nepal adopted in 1959 was silent on religion. Then the 1962 panchayat-era charter declared Nepal a Hindu kingdom. When a new constitution was promulgated in 1990 after the people’s movement, the new charter retained Nepal’s Hindu status despite protests from minority groups that wanted a secular state.

Between 1960 and 2006, the monarchy actively promoted Hinduism with the backing of Hindu organizations like the World Hindu Federation Nepal. In fact, the organization is still on its mission to promote Hinduism and monarchy. Yet the growing consensus among Nepali intellectuals and the political class is that Hinduism can no more be used as the primary tool of political mobilization in Nepal. The people of Nepal have still less appetite for a return of monarchy. 

Having joined underground communist politics in 1969, Madhav Kumar Nepal, now 67, has occupied nearly every important political position he could have aspired for. Starting in 1993, he headed the CPN-UML as its general secretary, the party’s top post back then, for 15 consecutive years. He became the country’s prime minister in May 2009, a job he held for 21 months. Still healthy and politically active, Nepal’s political aspirations remain high.  

Since the unification between CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center) in 2018, there has been a constant tussle between KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the two co-chairmen of the new Nepal Communist Party (NCP). The tussle is largely centered on the question of whether (and when) Oli should step down as prime minister and clear the way for Dahal. Alternately, Oli could have assuaged Dahal’s ego by making him the party’s sole chairman.

All this while, senior leader Nepal was himself engaged in hectic negotiations with both Oli and Dahal to carve out a greater role for himself in the party. Of late, Nepal had been allying with Dahal to fight against PM Oli’s ‘monopoly’.  

PM Oli in turn has now proposed to hold the ‘unity’ general convention this November in a bid to quell intra-party disputes. Before that, Nepal had clearly stated that he was ready to accept Dahal as prime minister in lieu of Oli.  What he does not want is for the two to once again arrive at a ‘secret agreement’ that leaves him out in the cold.

“Nepal is an obvious candidate for party chairman in the unity convention,” says Deepak Prakash Bhatta, an NCP leader who is close to Nepal. “Yet he is not a leader who is hungry for power. He rather wants the party to run according to certain norms and regulations.”

In the two and half years, Nepal has registered his note of dissident against several party decisions. His relation with PM Oli has been sour and there has been a breakdown of communication between the two. Nepal feels Oli reaches out to him only when Dahal tightens the screws on the prime minister to step down.

In August 2019, senior leader Nepal registered a seven-point note of dissent with the party, expressing his displeasure over work division of party leaders and order of precedence in party ranking. 

Broken order

Before the unification, say those close to him, Nepal’s position in the party was at par with Oli.  After it, Oli has systematically weakened his hold on party organizations. Before, 40 out of 75 UML district chiefs were from Nepal camp, which was his biggest strength. The votes secured by Oli and Nepal in the last general convention also suggest the two leaders had near equal strength in the party: Oli was elected from the convention with 1,047 votes, while his rival Nepal secured 1,003 votes.

When talks of unification with the Maoist party started, Nepal had expressed doubts about his position in the new party. Oli had apparently assured that Nepal would be elected party chairman in the next general convention. “Yes, there was a gentleman’s agreement to this effect,” says another leader close to Nepal requesting anonymity.

However, after the unification, “Oli started to take the side of Prachanda and launched a systematic campaign to weaken Nepal’s position in the party. While picking standing committee and central committee members, those from our sides were sidelined,” says the leader. Of the 174 NCP lawmakers now in the House of Representative, 78 are close to Oli, 53 to Dahal, and 43 to Nepal.  Similarly, in the 45-member standing committee, 18 are close to Dahal, 15 to Oli, and 12 to Nepal.

Nepal faction believes PM Oli is trying to drag him into the Baluwatar Lalita Niwas land-grab scam and using the scam as a bargaining tool. Over many years, various individuals had captured around 114 ropanis of public land at Lalita Niwas, during the tenures of successive post-2006 prime ministers.

Nepal’s current priority is to be elected chairman from the general convention, and reckons Dahal is his main rival, especially as Oli has announced he won’t be standing for chairman again. If Oli does opt out, Nepal wants to be the new chairman, with Dahal serving as the prime minister.

Checkered history

Since 1990, leader Nepal has been continuously holding vital state positions. He was a member of the Constitution Recommendation Committee formed in 1990 to draft a new constitution of Nepal. The Krishna Prasad Bhattarai government accepted the draft and promulgated the constitution. After that he was the main opposition leader of the lower house for nearly eight years. Similarly, he became the deputy prime minister in the 1993 Bharat Mohan Adhikari UML-led government.

After his 2001 royal coup, King Gyanendra had invited applications for the post of prime minister from political parties. Nepal was the only senior leader from the Big Two (Nepali Congress and CPN-UML) to apply, a taint Nepal has not been able to wash away to this day.

Nepal finally came to occupy the highest political office in the land in 2009 after the removal of Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government. Nepal was elevated to the post even though he had lost the 2008 CA elections.

Inside the party, Nepal is regarded as a pragmatic leader with high moral values. Notably, Nepal had resigned as the general secretary on moral grounds after the 2008 CA elections debacle. He later accepted the nomination as a CA member and took leadership of the Constitutional Committee that was responsible for the settlement of key disputed issues of the new constitution. If Nepal is seen as the kingmaker in the current dispute in the NCP, the senior leader has earned the position, say those close to him, adding that unlike Oli, Nepal does not want to see the NCP disintegrate at any cost.  

But Karna Bahadur Thapa, a close confidant of PM Oli, questions Nepal’s ‘clean image’ and moral integrity. “The main reason behind the current NCP deadlock is Madhav Kumar Nepal. He is preventing a possible deal between PM Oli and Dahal. He neither allows the government to function well nor is he helping complete the task of party unification,” Thapa says. Nepal, he adds, is ever ready to compromise on his ideals for political benefits.

CPN-UML had suffered a split in 1998 under Nepal’s leadership. “He was not flexible enough to accommodate Bam Dev Gautam [the leader of the breakaway faction],” says Thapa. To his critics, Nepal’s role in the 1998 party split, his petitioning to become prime minister in 2001, his agreement to be inducted into the CA despite losing the 2008 elections from two constituencies, and his current role in undermining the Oli government—all disprove that he is someone with a high moral character.

Most Indian TV news channels and many Indian newspapers have limited knowledge of Nepal. Earlier, they used to have resident reporters in Kathmandu, who made some effort to understand ground realities here. These days, most Indian media outlets don’t have such knowledgeable reporters in Kathmandu to bank upon. They rather rely on their New Delhi-based sources for second-hand (and often inaccurate) information on Nepal. This leads to inaccuracy in reporting. But even more than a lack of knowledge, it is their constant chase for eyeballs and salacious headlines that make them overstep journalistic norms. 

Nepal has been a victim of many such inappropriate and biased Indian reporting in recent times. During the 2015 earthquakes, the Indian news channels portrayed their country as a ‘savior’ of Nepalis, suggesting Nepal would have been helpless without its help. They also inflated the damages. This self-important attitude of the Indian media resulted in a ‘Go Back India’ campaign. The same condescending attitude was on display during the blockade later that year. Often, the Indian media appeared to be repeating the fodder the South Block provided them rather than trying to find the truth themselves. 

To be fair, the bulk of the Indian broadcast media is not very objective about events inside India too. They display a clear political bias. The channels that question the official line can be blacked out. Yet perhaps time has come for India to better regulate its private broadcast outlets—at least when it comes to their coverage of events outside India. In fact, the Press Council of India has spelled out that as media play an important role in molding public opinion and developing better understanding between countries, “objective reporting so as not to jeopardize friendly bilateral relations is therefore desirable.” 

‘Objective reporting’ is all that is needed. Indian journalists’ flouting of this government guideline has repercussions on India’s image in smaller countries in the region and on vital bilateral relations. Rightly or wrongly, people in countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan see these Indian channels as representatives of the Indian government. As these channels have mass appeal, whenever they broadcast something objectionable about one of the smaller countries, these countries fear that the entire region is being misinformed. And this high-handed attitude of the Indian media is seen as yet another evidence of ‘Indian hegemony’.  

Journalists have biases too. But why would Indian journalists misrepresent these countries that mostly have amicable relations with India? Nepal is not China (India’s main strategic rival) or Pakistan (its chief antagonist). So if Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is serious about his ‘Neighborhood First’ policy, why not ask these channels to be more careful in their reporting so as not to damage India’s image in the neighborhood? Isn’t that in India’s interest, too? Again, we are not asking these Indian channels to always give ‘positive spin’ to stories from here; only to balance things and make sure their reporting is accurate. If this small step can help improve India’s image in the neighborhood, why not?  

“Media plays an important role in moulding public opinion and developing better understanding between countries. Objective reporting so as not to jeopardise friendly bilateral relations is therefore desirable,” reads one of the norms of the Journalist Conduct issued by the Press Council of India in 2019.

Not just India, such code of conduct bars journalists from nearly all countries from reporting on matters harming friendly bilateral ties. The media are instead expected to play a positive role in the conduct and formulation of foreign policy. Recent news reports on Nepal by Indian TV channels, according to experts, is a serious breach of the journalist code of conduct, and the Press Council of India should thus take action. Such reports damage bilateral relations instead of contributing to better understanding between the two countries.

An Indian TV news channel had reported on how the Chinese envoy to Nepal was trying to ‘honey trap’ Oli, in what read like a fictional story. This invited outrage not only in Nepal but also India. The Press Council Nepal (PCN) has drawn the attention of its Indian counterpart on the report. The PCN is also closely monitoring the contents of Indian news channels on Nepal. “It would be easy for us to take up the matter with the Indian side if Nepal government filed a complaint with the PCN, which in turn could be forwarded to the Indian Press Council,” said PCN acting chairman Kishor Shrestha. In the past two decades, the number of television stations has mushroomed, posing a challenge to the norms of accuracy, journalistic ethics, and probity. Not only in Nepal, there has been huge criticism of Indian TV stations in India, too.

In the recent case involving the prime minister, discussions are underway in Nepal about what the government can do to counter such fabricated news stories. Nepal has dispatched a protest letter to the Indian government, objecting to the story, but it yet to get a response. Nepali Ambassador to Nepali New Delhi Nilambar Acharya reportedly spoke to the owner of Zee, the offending news station, and reports suggest the station has apologized. But that is insufficient, says the Nepali side.  

Ban no solution

Senior journalist Dhurba Hari Adhikari says Nepal can seek legal remedy on such fabricated reports, but the question is: should it? “Our embassy in New Delhi can consult legal experts and file a case against the news channel but it is better to resolve it diplomatically, as the legal battle will be long and costly,” he says. Adhikari says the role of Nepali mission in New Delhi is vital on such issues.

In immediate response, Nepali cable operators decided to ban (later removed) Hindi news channels. As a temporary measure, the ban can be justified, say media experts, but also impractical in the long run.

“Showing your dissatisfaction is a symbolic act. Yet a blanket broadcast ban on Indian television channels is not a long-term solution as their content is also easily available on the web,” says media expert Laxman Datt Pant, who heads Media Action Nepal.

According to Pant, there are three ways to tackle Indian media’s fabricated stories on Nepal. First, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could take the initiative to start dialogue with Indian authorities. Second, we could communicate with the Indian Press Council and the Broadcasting Authority, arguing the broadcast content violates ethical standards and the two countries’ media laws. And, third, Nepal’s media and Nepal-India relation experts could provide insights on how such fabricated stories hurt bilateral relations in general and the Indian establishment in particular.

In India, private television stations fall under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which is regulates the content on private satellite channels. For the purpose, the ministry has an Inter-Ministerial Committee headed by Additional Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The Indian government cannot dictate the content of its television stations as the constitution of India grants them full freedom of speech and expression. But it can seek clarification and urge correction or removal of objectionable content. “Compared to print and other outlets, there is more government control on Indian broadcasting media. In 2016, the Indian government had banned the NDTV for 24 hours. So the Indian government can do something meaningful whenever a broadcast media breaches its norms,” says Media expert and educator Dr Kundan Aryal.

Two-way street

Aryal points to the need for extensive discussions among media persons and other sections of the society about the negative coverage of Indian TV channels. “The problem with Indian news channels is that most of them do not have correspondents here so their observation is weak. They rather depend on high-level sources in New Delhi who often misguide them,” Aryal says.

Nepal can also ask organizations such as the International Federation of Journalists to take up the issue with India. Speaking with AP1HD television, senior journalist P. Kharel said Indian laws bar the media from any reporting that could hamper India’s relations with other countries. So Nepal also has the option of taking up the issue with India at the official level.

Despite objectionable coverage by some India media outlets, Prime Minister KP Oli’s baseless remarks on Nepal-India relations, according to experts, will weaken Nepal’s claim that Indian media are carrying inaccurate stories on Nepal. On July 13, he claimed without any evidence that the birthplace of Lord Ram is in Nepal and not India. Expressing his dissatisfaction over the PM’s remark, Aryal, who once served as PM Oli’s press advisor, said such statements could weaken the country’s position on Indian media coverage of Nepal.

“What sort of a statement was it, anyway? Was PM Oli trying to compete for attention against Indian TV channels?” Aryal questions.

Even as the Covid-19 crisis rages on, badly hindering party activities, Nepali Congress, the main opposition, has expedited the process of holding its 14^th General Convention on 19-22 February 2021 in Kathmandu. The party’s top decision-making body is to elect new leadership from center to grassroots.

To prepare, the party is holding its Central Working Committee (CWC) meeting. In fact, preparations for the convention had started back in February but had to be put off following the Covid outbreak in the country. Though the dates for lower-level party conventions have changed, the previously set date for the general convention remains intact. Yet it will be tough to hold the general convention on time.

First, the Nepali Congress is yet to complete the integration process of its grassroots-level cadres in line with the federal structures. In the federal restructuring, many village development committees have been reduced to wards and new electoral constituencies for provincial houses have been created. Adjustment of local leaders and cadres to this change has been difficult. Factional feuds have posed additional hurdle, as the party has to accommodate all factions.

According to NC Spokesperson Bishwa Prakash Sharma, adjustment of cadres remains incomplete in over two dozens districts. The party has instructed those district committees to complete the task within the next week. Originally, all these activities were to be completed by the third week of April.  

Renewal and updating of active membership is another uphill task that needs to be completed soon for the general convention to happen. Yet the party is yet to even send membership forms to all districts.

According to the new calendar, renewal and distribution of new active membership will be completed by December 15. This will be followed by village/town/ward level convention on December 21. The convention of 753 local governments happens on December 23, provincial-level electoral constituency convention on December 26, and district-level convention from December 28-31. After this comes provincial level convention on January 19, and last is the general convention on February 19-22. The party is undecided on how such a large number of cadres will gather in the middle of a raging pandemic.

Although NC President Sher Bahadur Deuba was hesitant, the party was compelled to come up with a fixed calendar due to relentless pressure from senior leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Krishna Prasad Situala. These leaders had been boycotting CWC meetings accusing the party president of delaying the general convention. Ever since the Congress was drubbed in 2017 parliamentary elections, Deuba has been under pressure to hold the convention as soon as possible so that party leadership can be handed over to someone else.

Besides Covid, constant floods and landsides will make party activities difficult in July and August. Similarly, in the winter that follows, mountainous districts will be covered in snow. Says a top NC leader requesting anonymity: “Party President Deuba agreed to hold general convention on time to deflect criticism that he is using the corona crisis as an excuse to extend his tenure.”

NC youth leader Madhu Acharya, who is thought of as close to senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel, says the party’s calendar is unscientific and it will be difficult to hold the general convention next February. “Due to floods and landslides, there can be no party-related activity in the next couple of months, and soon after that, there is Dashain and Tihar. Practically, it will be impossible to strictly adhere to the calendar,” Acharya says.

Yet the announcement of general convention dates signals that the process of electing new NC leadership has started, which is a vital message in the eyes of the party functionaries opposed to Deuba’s leadership. Party statute allows the CWC to extend its tenure by six months in case of an ‘abnormal situation’ in the country—and on current form the party is likely to take that option.

Incumbent President Deuba, 73, is looking to hang on, even after the 2017 electoral drubbing. Other party leaders wanted him to take responsibility and resign; but Deuba has refused to be scapegoated. At the upcoming general convention, his main challenge for party presidency could come from Dr Shekhar Koirala, who has been widely canvassing the country to drum up support. He believes he is the right scion of the Koirala family.  

Ram Chandra Poudel, 75, feels other senior leaders have long cheated him out of presidency, and even of the prime minister’s chair. He reckons it’s now or never. Prakash Man Singh, another senior leader from the Poudel camp, also wants to fight for presidency. But if Poudel enters the ring, Singh is likely to settle for vice-president.

When democracy was restored to Nepal in 1990, the country was unprepared. The state had been thoroughly centralized under the Panchayat system, with everyone ultimately answerable to the monarch. Between the people and the place, there were only a handful of intermediary institutions, which too came under direct control of the monarchy. Political parties were banned, and so were independent courts and constitutional bodies. Thus post-1990 governments had to operate in a kind of vacuum. Without functioning democratic institutions to hold them to account, the political leaders who suddenly found themselves in power were free to do pretty much as they pleased. 

Lack of democratic culture became immediately clear as political parties started a mad scramble for power. Politicians were reluctant to sit in the opposition and miss out on the gravy train. Hence no sooner would a government be formed, the opposition was already plotting its downfall. Nor were big parties like Nepali Congress and CPN-UML united, and competing political leaders often conspired to bring down their own governments. One reason for this perpetual state of instability was the flawed legislation that allowed quick making and breaking of governments. This changed in 2015 with the drafting of a new constitution. 

But even though the legislation changed, the mindset of the class of politicians that has continuously ruled the country for the past 30 years didn’t. So despite the ruling Nepal Communist Party now having nearly two-thirds parliamentary majority, its government once again appears wobbly even as more than half its five-year mandate remains. “Democracy demands responsible, broad-minded and consultative political leadership,” says political analyst Krishna Pokhrel. “Yet we have hardly had leaders with these characters since the 1990 political change.”

One reason for this close-mindedness is the tendency of our top political leaderships to limit their horizons to a small coterie of leaders and advisors. They simply don’t trust others. Another political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta avers that the current regime, like the earlier ones, is heavily occupied by power politics and not with people’s urgent agendas. Bhatta argues that ‘elite settlement’ of various democratic movements and convergence between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ classes to amass power, prestige and money create disillusionment among the masses and thus sow the seeds of instability. 

Then there is India, which became enmeshed in making and breaking many governments in Kathmandu. India wanted to maintain its stranglehold on Nepali polity and keep other foreign actors out. But in analyst Pokhrel’s words, “India’s interference persists, and yet the primary drivers of instability remains domestic—and it was no different in the past.” 

Sadly, the country’s current political leadership has done little to strengthen other democratic institutions or to make people believe it is working in their interest. It also seems minded to rely on external actors to protect its reign. 

Khokana, a small ancient village on the southern outskirts of Kathmandu Valley, is famous for its rich Newari culture and festivals. Newars have lived here for centuries. The place is also popular for its high quality ‘tori tel’ [mustard oil].

But the village has been in national headlines for a different reason in the past few years. The government wants to build the much-hyped Kathmandu-Nijgadh expressway through this village. The locals have rejected the plan, objecting that massive construction works will devastate the village and destroy its rich Newari heritage. They have been asking the government to change its decision, to no avail.

On July 3, police clashed with locals when the latter tried to plant paddy in their lands that the government has acquired for building the highway. The locals have rejected compensation against the acquisition.

Apart from the expressway, other projects are also planned through this village. Locals fear that the construction of the proposed outer ring road of Kathmandu Valley, a 132-KV transmission line, Bagmati corridor, and Kathmandu-Hetauda tunnel-way will ruin their abode and decimate agricultural productivity. On July 4, over 2,000 people gathered to protest government plans.

Locals say they are ready to give land for the projects in a way that doesn’t harm their cultural heritage. “We have proposed to give land outside Khokana for this purpose, but the government does not even want to discuss this option. It is trying to appropriate huge areas near the village,” says Krishna Bhakta Dangol, chair of a local committee mandated to talk to the government on this issue. “We want to protect our culture as well as our agricultural lands.”

Inviting trouble

Development planners and experts say Khokana highlights the folly in our national planning. In other places too the government has invited trouble by bypassing local people while designing projects. As they are key stakeholders in any project, addressing their concerns is vital. Former vice-chair of National Planning Commission (NPC) Jagadish Chandra Pokhrel says such issues should have been resolved during project finalization. “Khokana shows how we always make mistakes while designing projects and rue them later. It is a historic village with rich culture. When we do projects in such places, there should be broad debates and discussions,” Pokhrel says.

Pokhrel reckons that as the expressway is a big highway, it is better not to take the road through the village or keep zero-point there. “If there is no alternative, then the case would be different. But there are alternatives for the starting point of this highway,” he says. According to him, the use of force and suppression of people’s sentiments won’t do the project any good. A democratic way of running development projects is to hear the concerns of local people, he adds.

Government authorities, however, say that as project designing and compensations have already started, it would now be costly to change the design and choose a different starting point.

Environmentalist Prabhu Budathoki says the problem lies in our traditional top-down development model. The dispute in Khokana shows that development planners focus only on technical aspects while neglecting social, cultural and environmental issues, he says. For a culturally rich country like Nepal, these issues should be of paramount importance, he adds. “Both sides should sit for talks and find a solution to minimize damages. We cannot recreate Khokana village and its culture. We can only preserve them,” he says.

A logical option would be to address the concerns of the local people and divert the road a bit, even if it’s a little costly, advises Budathoki. That would be better than unnecessarily delaying the project owing to local protests, “which will be costlier than the diversion.”  

In the worst case, projects even get canceled in such cases. In the past, Melamchi drinking water project and Arun-3 hydropower have been significantly delayed for similar reasons.

But it’s not always the government’s fault. Political players and vested groups also create unnecessary problems at the local level, experts point out. For instance, local representatives of opposition political parties often try to instigate protests against the government. There is also this natural tendency among people to doubt distant government representatives.

“Local people tend to doubt government officials and their work, creating problems,” says former NPC vice-chair Pokhrel. In the case of Khokana, locals are also unhappy with the compensation for their land.

Khokana residents have already submitted an application at the National Human Rights Commission demanding protection of their cultural and human rights. The expressway project was initiated two decades ago but it was soon stalled, for various reasons. The government later gave the work to the Nepal Army. The planned 76-km road, which will be the shortest linking Kathmandu and the Tarai, is estimated to take four years to complete at the cost of Rs 110 billion.