Submit your Article

The Supreme Court of Nepal on April 17, Friday issued an interim order to the government to make arrangements for the safe passage of people stranded in various parts of the country. Currently, hundreds of people are taking long and risky journeys to reach their homes from Kathmandu.

Responding to a petition registered by Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma, a joint bench of Justice Ananda Kumar Bhattarai and Sapana Pradhan Malla ordered the federal government to arrange transport of those people. In the protracted lockdown, hundred of people who are mainly employed in unorganized sectors are leaving Kathmandu, as they can’t sustain their livelihood in the capital city.

As per the court order, the government must arrange free meals and transport for them. Due to the travel restrictions imposed by various districts, many are stranded on district borders. The SC also instructed the government not to create hurdles for the people who want to return home.

Though local governments claim they have arranged meals for the poor, but those affected say the relief is insufficient. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has already initiated discussions with ministers to arrange transport for the stranded people. 

In democratic countries, the prospect of the national army coming out on the streets makes people nervous. So does its involvement in any business, even in the import of vital kits and equipment to deal with a potentially deadly pandemic.

Article 267 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 says the role of Nepal Army is to safeguard the country’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national unity. Additionally, Article 267(4) says, “The Government of Nepal may also mobilize the Nepal Army in other works including development, construction and disaster management works, as provided for in the federal law.”

Further, “The President shall, on recommendation of the National Security Council and pursuant to a decision of the Government of Nepal, Council of Ministers, declare the mobilization of the Nepal Army in cases where a grave emergency arises in regard to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Nepal or the security of any part thereof, by war, external aggression, armed rebellion or extreme economic disarray.” A declaration of the mobilization of the Nepal Army must be ratified by the parliament within a month.

Yet there is nothing in the constitution about the role of the national force in the kind of government-to-government procurement of Covid-19 kits that has recently landed it in controversy. “The army could have told the government that it does not want to be involved in such business deals,” says military expert Deepak Prakash Bhatta, who is also a leader of the ruling Nepal Communist Party.

The national army has already taken up several development projects, including Kathmandu-Tarai fast track. Similarly, army personnel have been deployed in disaster management works. In a recent example, the Nepal Army built 869 houses in Bara and Parsa districts that had been ravaged by a tornado in March last year. During floods and landslides, too, army personnel are in the frontline of rescue and rehabilitation works.

Experimental stage

But the army has had no experience of dealing with a pandemic. Security experts say the government can mobilize the national army to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, but only if its role can be clearly defined within constitutional limits. In other countries, too, the national armies have been mobilized to assist the civilian government. For example, the US government instructed its army to build hospitals. In Spain, it was out in force enforcing the national lockdown.  

“Army personnel can, for instance, be mobilized to regulate the Nepal-India border and check the movement of people during the pandemic, which is not happening,” says Bhatta. “After the lockdown, hundreds of Nepali workers have been coming home from India. But they have not been screened properly.” Instead, Minister for Home Affairs Ram Bahadur Thapa has instructed the Armed Police Force (AFP) to monitor the movement of people at the border; the deployment has been inadequate.

Compared to other civil organizations, the national army has a well-trained, more disciplined, and better equipped force. As army’s resources are always oriented to a large-scale war, they can be immediately mobilized to build makeshift hospitals. They have helicopters and vehicles, and bases across the country. If the doctors at government and private hospitals are unwilling to work, the army can mobilize its troops and medical personnel for medical care as well.

The medical services of the Nepal Army had started in 1925 with the establishment of Tri-Chandra Military Hospital at Mahankal, Kathmandu. Renamed Shree Birendra Hospital (SBH) and relocated to Chhauni, it is now a 635-bed sophisticated hospital with a military rehabilitation center, two field hospitals, and 15 field ambulance companies.

Foggy path

The Nepal Army is already involved in controlling the spread of the coronavirus. It has developed a smartphone app for smooth flow of corona-related information. Similarly, the Covid-19 Crisis Management Center has been established in the army barracks in Chhauni. According to security analyst Binoj Basnyat, formation of this center under the Minister of Defense is a signal from Nepal government that the army’s participation is inevitable. “It is the National Security Council that should decide how the Nepal Army is to be deployed,” he says.

But as the NSC has not met for a long time, the role of the Nepal Army in the current corona pandemic remains unclear.

Former Major General of the Nepal Army Tara Bahadur Karki says the NSC should be meeting regularly during a crisis of this magnitude. In the current health emergency, Karki argues, it is the Ministry of Health that should be in the frontline fighting it, with the army playing a backup role. “On the other hand, if the pandemic tomorrow poses a direct threat to the country’s security, then the army has to lead from the front,” he says.   

Currently, there are some other mechanisms that can decide on limited deployment of army personnel. The district administration offices can deploy the army at the district level for disaster management, after obtaining permission from the Army Headquarters. At the national level, the Home Ministry can activate the Disaster Relief Act of 2020, clearing the road for the army’s deployment in disaster-control.

“For Covid-19, the army may act as a strategic reserve with heavy medical practitioners and necessary components at the center, operational reserve in the provinces, and fully-involved contribution in the districts,” Basnyat suggests.

One such example army deployment was during the 1918 influenza pandemic in the US, which lasted for 10 months. In the three-phase pandemic, the second phase was the most dangerous, and the US army had to be deployed to control it. “Nepal is now entering the second phase. We should draw the right lessons from history and from the experiences of other countries,” he suggests.

Since the unification of Nepal’s two biggest communist parties—the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center)—in May 2018, the issue of power sharing has largely determined the dynamics between Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and his Nepal Communist Party (NCP) co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Oli is bent on retaining all his executive powers, while Dahal wants a greater say in the government as well as in party-related works.

The latest instance of disagreement between the two leaders concerns Dahal’s proposal of an all-party mechanism to deal with the novel coronavirus pandemic. Leaders close to PM Oli see Dahal’s proposal as a ploy to weaken the government. They believe elected governments from the center to local levels are more than capable of handling the Covid-19 crisis, and there is no need for such an extra-constitutional body.

Dahal, however, is reportedly keen on the mechanism to wrest some control over government functioning away from Oli. The former Maoist supremo’s supporters are not happy with the way the prime minister has brushed aside the mechanism. “The way PM Oli has responded to Dahal’s proposal is objectionable. A proposal made by the party’s executive chair cannot be taken so lightly,” says NCP leader Haribol Gajurel who is close to Dahal.   

The relation between Oli and Dahal has been uneasy since party unification. Oli wants to centralize all powers while Dahal wants more of it for himself. As a temporary truce between the two, the NCP Secretariat meeting last November had bestowed some executive powers on Dahal. But PM Oli has continued to act as the party’s senior chairman with all executive powers, pushing Dahal to a secondary role, even in party affairs.

As per the gentleman’s understanding struck at the time of party unification, Dahal wants either the unified party’s chairmanship or the prime minister’s chair. In return for allowing Oli to continue as the prime minister for five years, Dahal had apparently been guaranteed chairmanship. But he can be chosen chairman only by the party’s national convention scheduled for next April. So Dahal wants a timely convention. Also, to be elected party-chair, Dahal needs Oli’s full support, which has not been forthcoming.  

The corona caveat

Due to the Covid-19 crisis the chances of a timely convention appears bleak. All party activities have been suspended. Before the general convention, they must hold conventions of all party committees from the grassroots up, in what is a lengthy process.

According to the tentative timeline, the party’s January central working committee meeting had set aside the months of April and May for the renewal of old party memberships and distribution of new ones. But this program has had to be put off due to the coronavirus lockdown. Similarly, the party had planned on wrapping up local and provincial conventions by the end of 2020. The national general convention could then have been held on the second week of April. Now, lengthy delays are expected.

Likewise, the party’s five-month-long unification and public relation campaign that was to start on February 13 has been indefinitely postponed.

Health experts have advised against lifting social distancing measures before a vaccine for Covid-19 is developed. On current estimates, the development of such a vaccine could take at least a year. NCP leader Deepak Prakash Bhatta thus acknowledges that the general convention has been pushed into uncertainty by the corona menace.

Meanwhile, Dahal’s supporters suspect the Oli camp is trying to use the coronavirus scare to delay the convention and to sideline Dahal. “PM Oli seems unhappy at the way Dahal has been gaining ground in the party,” says Gajurel, the leader close to co-chair Dahal.   

Dahal wants the reports of misappropriation of funds in the import of Covid-19 kits to be discussed in party bodies, something for which Oli is not ready. On the other hand, Oli’s supporters see Dahal’s hand in the ‘unjust’ criticism of the government’s handling of the corona menace, including the kit import.  

Old qualms

PM Oli was forced to accept Agni Sapkota, a Dahal acolyte, as the speaker of the federal lower house. In another instance, PM Oli was not keen on nominating Bamdev Gautam as a member of the federal upper house, even though the party Secretariat had already decided to do so. In fact, on that occasion, Oli had rather alarmingly found himself in the minority in the nine-member Secretariat. There are also differences between PM Oli and Dahal on who should be the deputy-speaker of the lower house.

There is thus more than a smidgen of truth in the suspicion that Oli is trying to cement his hold, for he understands that other senior party leaders cannot openly criticize him during a national crisis.

But NCP leader Bhatta says such a course could also be dangerous for the prime minster: “If PM Oli tries to cover up his weaknesses instead of correcting them, it will lead to growing polarization within the party, with the eventual weakening of incumbent leadership.”

In other words, with Dahal getting restive for power, the Oli camp reckons the delay in general convention will strengthen their hand. But then if Oli and his small coterie are seen as sidelining others and undermining party unity, the tide could well against them by the time of the next general convention, whenever that might happen. 

Nepal’s Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has dismissed the demand for an all-party political mechanism to deal with the novel coronavirus pandemic.

In a video-conference with chief ministers of seven provinces on Saturday, April 11, the prime minister ruled out such a mechanism as a separate entity from the government. The PM’s message came when his Nepal Communist Party co-chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been asking for such a mechanism to discuss and decide on vital corona-related measures.

Some fringe parties are also demanding such a mechanism, even as the main opposition Nepali Congress is divided on it.

“The government is carrying out its duties effectively. There is no need for another mechanism to direct it,” Oli said. Oli and his supporters see Dahal’s demand as a ploy to weaken the government. But Dahal’s supporters counter that at a time of crisis like this, inter- and intra-party consultations are vital, and something that Oli is allegedly avoiding.

In a separate context, PM Oli hinted at the extension of the lockdown beyond April 15. Next-door India, which is witnessing a rapid surge in number of Covid-19 patients, is preparing to extend the lockdown.

PM Oli told chief ministers that it would be unwise to lift the lockdown when the number of cases in India is going up. The PM also told the chiefs ministers to work towards restricting movements along Nepal-India border. 

It’s hard to predict how the corona crisis will unfold in Nepal when the extended deadline of the lockdown expires on April 15. Chances are, the lockdown could be further extended as Nepal is yet to widely test people for the virus, and as India is also looking likely to extend its own nationwide lockdown beyond April 21. This could be for everyone’s good, and a much better option than rescinding the lockdown and letting the contagious virus free to follow its natural and potentially deadly course.

Yet the fear that aspiring autocrats could misuse the pandemic to cement their rule, and to undercut civil liberties, also continues to grow. We already see this in Russia and Hungary. Even in India and Nepal, the respective governments have been accused of catering to the whims of the middle and upper classes even as the poorest of the society disproportionately suffer from the near lockdown. There is also a tendency of governments to discredit any voices of opposition to their anti-corona measures. Opposing voices everywhere stand accused of trying to ‘politicize’ the pandemic.

“Around the world, measures to contain the coronavirus are threatening liberal values and basic principles of democracy,” as political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam puts it. In Nepal too the ruling party leaders, from the prime minister down, have been trying to discredit the opposition parties and the media, which have rightly raised their voice against the mismanagement and corruption seen in the government’s anti-corona measures. This, however, has not dispelled doubts that many ruling party leaders will not think twice about enriching themselves on the pretext of controlling the pandemic.

As dangerous have been efforts to tinker with online media content that portrayed senior government officials in a bad light for their involvement in corona-related corruption. This suggests that the government could get more and more draconian as it tries to control the narrative of its fight against the dreaded virus. And the Oli government does look likely to come under some criticism, given its mismanagement of the crisis and given Nepal’s lack of resources to fight the unseen enemy.

Thankfully, PM Oli is slowly regaining his health and is now reportedly leading the corona response, something he had delegated to lower-level government officials till date. This will hopefully open up clear channels of communication and minimize the involvement of unscrupulous middlemen in the import of vital kits and medicines. With him in charge, the government will also be in a better position to track the flow of cash from the center to the provincial and local units. The prime minister doesn’t like the criticism leveled against his government. He now has the chance to prove his critics wrong.

Countries the world over, including Nepal, are opting for lockdowns to contain the spread of novel coronavirus (Covid-19), often with considerable public support. Many governments have assumed emergency powers to do so. This in turn has fuelled fears that rulers with autocratic bent could use the pandemic to cement their rule and silence critics.

For instance, to contain the contagion, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has assumed extraordinary powers to rule by decree. The decree, among other things, allows the prime minister the power to control the media. Rights groups warn the country could be headed towards a full-blown dictatorship.

“Around the world, measures to contain the coronavirus are threatening liberal values and basic principles of democracy,” says political analyst Shreekrishna Aniruddh Gautam. “The other tendencies in evidence during the pandemic are further cementing of nationalist sentiments and emboldening of anti-globalization forces.”

In Nepal, some government decisions have already raised eyebrows. It decided to let Nepal Army import essential materials to fight coronavirus, after a private company assigned the duty failed to do so. Why do we need an elected government, many question, if all vital government duties are to be passed on to the army?

Even top leaders of the ruling Nepal Communist Party are unhappy with lack of consultations in dealing with Covid-19 and with the prevalence of security forces on vital national issues, which, they reckon, could threaten civilian supremacy. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is yet to summon a joint meeting of ruling and opposition leaders, which belies his assertion that the anti-corona measures of the federal government have broad political support.

Missing scrutiny

The government has also stalled the parliament’s winter session, which is known as the bills session. In the absence of parliamentary scrutiny, it can now issue decrees to get things done. The next session of parliament is the budget session. As corona is an urgent issue, the government can summon a special session of parliament before that. And if big gatherings are a problem, the parliament can meet virtually, as is being done in some other countries. The Oli government has thus far refrained from such innovative measures.

Tara Nath Dahal, executive director of Freedom Forum, a think-tank on civil, political and media rights, says he has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Speaker of the federal lower house Agni Sapkota that there should be continuous and consistent parliamentary oversight over government functioning during the pandemic.

“Now, the country is operating on the basis of government decrees. There is also a question-mark over the constitutional validity of the lockdown, even though it maybe justified from a public health perspective,” Dahal says. “It is vital that the parliament continues to function, especially during a national crisis.”

The judiciary can help with check and balance but its functioning too is limited. Currently, all courts (Supreme, High and District) are hearing only urgent cases. Similarly, the National Human Rights Commission, a constitutional rights watchdog, has been almost comatose during the coronavirus lockdown.

In such a void, it is easy for the government to try to accumulate power and suppress dissent, according to Dahal.

Dangerous precedents

Take the recent fiasco with the online news portal Kathmandupress.com. The portal’s developer remotely accessed the website’s backend and deleted an article critical of the prime minister’s advisors. Reportedly, the PM’s inner circle had put pressure on the IT company to delete the article, even though this has not been independently verified.

In another development, Press Council Nepal has blocked over a dozen online news portals on the ground that they were publishing fake news and misleading the public. Though some of those portals did indeed post news of questionable nature, observers say the press council does not have a right to block them, which sets a dangerous precedent. 

In his address to the country on April 7, PM Oli doubled down on critics, arguing that some people were trying to mischievously defame the government even though it was doing a good job in controlling the spread of coronavirus.

Freedom House, a US-based global think-tank, has called on governments across the world to protect civil, political and media rights during and after the pandemic. “Criminal penalties for distributing false information are disproportionate and prone to arbitrary application and abuse. Instead, governments should counter any falsehoods by delivering clear, accurate, and up-to-date information,” advises the think-tank in its guidelines.

But over the past two years, there have been multiple efforts to curtail media freedom in Nepal. Three laws—Media Council Bill, Information Technology Act, and Special Services Act—have provisions that curtail media freedom and civil rights.  

In the name of controlling the pandemic, experts fear governments could also snoop on people’s private information. “China reportedly contained the coronavirus with the help of its overarching surveillance mechanisms,” says Gautam, the political analyst. “One upshot of such sweeping surveillance could be spying on and preying upon the government’s adversaries. This will be a big threat to democracy.”

Naradevi Gurung, 52, who had elevated blood pressure and high fever, died on March 31 after private hospitals in Biratnagar of eastern Nepal refused to see her/ AMN ARCHIVES 

“Every citizen shall have the right to basic health services from the state, and no one shall be deprived of emergency health services,” states Article 35 of the new constitution. Despite the constitutional provision, in reality, there is no assurance of people’s access to even basic health services in many parts of Nepal. After the government announcement of a lockdown to contain the possible spread of the novel coronavirus, the public right to basic health services has been even more restricted. There have been instances of deaths of patients presenting themselves with corona-like symptoms after private hospitals refused to admit them.

This callous behavior of private hospitals and clinics during the coronavirus pandemic has sparked a debate on the kind of health policy the country needs. There are also voices that private hospitals should be nationalized, temporarily during the corona crisis, if not permanently. Spain recently nationalized all its private hospitals and healthcare service providers after they were deemed uncooperative in the country’s fight against the coronavirus. 

Nepal opened its door for private investment in health with the start of the era of economic liberalization in 1990. The National Health Policy 1990 advocated the role of the private sector, and led to the opening of private hospitals and other health related services. Private sector is now involved mainly in two areas of healthcare: first as service providers, and second as producers of medicines and equipment. But has time come to revisit Nepal’s privatization policy?

Regulate, don’t close 

Former multiple-time finance minister and central working committee member of Nepali Congress Ram Sharan Mahat, who is thought of as one of the architects of the new era of liberalization and privatization, says there is no need to rethink the current policy. “It is also untrue that the government has pulled back from the health sector. In the past three decades, there has been rapid expansion of government hospitals in districts and rural areas,” he adds. Since the private hospitals complement rather than compete against government hospitals, they should be better regulated rather than closed, he advises. 

Mahat says those with little knowledge are questioning the rationale behind the privatization of health. “People should get to choose which hospital, private or government, they want to go and get treated. Some may even opt to go abroad for the same purpose. It is their right,” he adds. 

Madhusudan Subedi, a Professor at Patan Academy of Health Sciences, says the issue of rethinking Nepal’s health policy came to the fore mainly after Dr. Govinda KC’s recent campaigns for drastic reforms in the health sector. “The demand for nationalization of private hospitals is emotional and impractical. The problem again is that after 1990 successive governments failed to regulate the health sector properly, and not necessarily that our private hospitals are not working,” he says.  

On the coronavirus pandemic, Subedi says what is missing is coordination between government agencies and private hospitals. “And before accusing them of callousness, the government should provide Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to doctors and nurses in private hospitals. But even the doctors working in government hospital don’t have these basic protective gears,” Subedi says. 

Nay, involve the state

But according to Khagaraj Adhikari, former Health Minister and central committee member of the ruling Nepal Communist Party, this is the perfect time to rethink the post-1990 health policies. “The private hospitals have done some good. But their response to the coronavirus pandemic suggests they will be accountable to the public and the state only when it suits them and not when they are most needed. There is thus a strong rationale for greater government involvement in healthcare,” he says. 

Many private hospitals are also openly flouting set criteria. For instance, they must set aside 10 percent of their total beds for free treatment of the poor and marginalized communities. But according to last year’s Auditor General’s report, most private hospitals are not implementing this provision. Similarly, the facilities they provide to senior citizens are also short of the legal requirements. The same report says private hospitals have not hired the required number of doctors and nurses; nor do they have adequate labs, equipment and beds. 

Says Uma Kanta Chaudhary, another ex-health minister: “The state should be bold. If private hospitals shy away from their responsibly during a health crisis, they should be penalized. Yet it is not just their fault. Traditionally, the Nepali government has also failed to effectively monitor and take action against those who violate rules.” He advises that the private hospitals be made “more service-centric rather than purely business-centric”.
 

The neglected lot 

In the past three decades there has been insufficient investment and effort in improving the state of government hospitals and decentralizing them. Right now they are desperately short on vital staff and equipment, and disproportionately concentrated in urban pockets. 

There are four types of hospitals in Nepal: public hospitals (known as government hospitals), private/NGO hospitals, nursing homes, and medical colleges. Around 700 big and small private medical establishments are in operation, along with 19 medical colleges. In terms of government hospitals, there are three federal level hospitals, seven regional hospitals, and 77 district hospitals, in addition to smaller health and sub-health posts in local units.  

Lockdown is considered the most effective way to contain the community spread of the novel coronavirus (Covid-19).

Countries like Italy, the United Kingdom, France, India, among others, are under complete lockdown. Japan and South Korea are under pressure to implement it in toto. “When it comes to containing the novel coronavirus, there really is no other viable option,” says Dr Khem Karki, a public health expert at Ministry of Health and Population while urging all Nepalis to strictly follow lockdown rules. Thankfully, compared to India, other South Asian countries have witnessed relatively fewer infections.

Initially, Nepal had announced a week-long lockdown, which has now been extended by another week. People are starting to question: Will this lockdown be extended indefinitely? Government sources do not have a definite answer. They say the lockdown will be under constant review and will be relaxed if the corona risk drops. Says Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Pokhrel who is leading Nepal’s fight against Covid-19, “We are closely following developments. We cannot actually say how long it [the lockdown] will go.”  

The duration of Nepal’s lockdown will also depend on how the situation evolves in India. With China well on its way to containing the virus, and given its strict travel restrictions, there is less of a threat to Nepal from the north. But due to the open border and the provision of free movement of people across it, Nepal will have a harder time controlling the spread of the coronavirus from India.

“If the number of cases remain static, Nepal might think of easing the lockdown. But that too will take around a month. Also, if there is an increase in cases in India, Nepal would be bound to keep the borders shut and prolong the lockdown,” says Pramod Jaiswal, Research Director at Nepal Institute for International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE). “I also don’t see any possibility of resumption of international flights to major affected countries anytime soon.”

In the worst-case scenario in India, more and more Nepali migrant workers will look to enter Nepal, lockdown or not. Conversely, if India can keep the number of positive corona cases low, most of them are likely to stay put there and thus the pressure on Nepal will ease considerably.

But what kind of indications are we getting from India? On current evidence, could its lockdown be extended beyond 21 days? According to the Press Information Bureau of India, the country’s official press agency, “There are rumors and media reports, claiming that government will extend the lockdown when it expires. The cabinet secretary has denied these reports, and stated that they are baseless.”

Earlier, the research of Ronojoy Adhikari and Rajesh Singh of University of Cambridge had shown that India’s 21-day lockdown was inadequate and that it could go up to 49 days. Indian officials, however, say they currently have no plans to extend the 21-day window. However, they have not completely ruled out an extension as well.

Usually, the symptoms of the novel coronavirus emerge within 14 days after people get infected. So if those with the virus have already entered the country, they will show some symptoms within this period. If not, there is no risk from them. As Nepal has already banned all international air travel until April 15, the bigger challenge will again come from the porous land borders with India.

Infectious disease physician Dr Anup Subedi says removal of lockdown depends on the progress on testing, isolation and contact tracing. “Additional testing kits and logistics have just arrived. Now we will do more tests, which in turn will help us determine the gravity of the matter,” he say. “But no, I do not think two weeks will be sufficient to contain the novel coronavirus in Nepal. Yes, what we can do is take additional measures to ease people’s daily lives should there be an extension of the lockdown deadline.” 

Dr Subedi also says there is a strong case to be made for continued restriction on the movement of people across the border and to allow only essential supplies.

Despite the request of the Nepal government to stay put wherever they are, Nepali migrant workers continue to flock just across the border. Many of those who have gotten to enter the country have not implemented the 14-day isolation rules either. Even for the stranded ones, the government of Nepal has no option but to allow its citizens to enter their country.

“It is insensitive on the part of both Nepal and India not to take back their citizens stranded along the Indo-Nepal border,” says Uddhab Pyakurel, an assistant professor at Kathmandu University and a researcher on India-Nepal border. Yet that could pose a huge challenge if those who enter cannot be quarantined.

Additionally, thousands of Nepali migrant workers in various parts of India are struggling. The Indian government has pledged to provide them with basic necessities. But they are not convinced and want to get back to their homeland as soon as possible.

No one should be surprised if the complexities of people-to-people ties and an open border between Nepal and India lead to a further extension to Nepal’s novel coronavirus lockdown.