Submit your Article

In Hinduism, the month of Shrawan which is the fourth month of the Hindu calendar holds special significance as it’s dedicated to Lord Shiva. Devotees observe fasting, offer prayers, and visit temples during this month to seek blessings and show their devotion. It’s believed that prayers and offerings made during Shrawan are especially auspicious and can lead to the fulfillment of one’s wishes. 

The mondays of Shrawan, known as ‘Shrawan Somvar,’ are particularly important for Shiva worship. People often adorn themselves with holy ash and offer water, milk, and other offerings to Lord Shiva during this month.

The Pashupati Arati is a daily ritual that takes place at the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal. It’s a significant religious ceremony held in honor of Lord Pashupatinath.

In Shrawan, every evening, the temple complex comes alive with the mesmerizing Pashupati Arati. Thousands of devotees gather to witness the sacred ritual where oil lamps are lit, accompanied by chanting, prayers, and the ringing of bells. The Arati is performed by the temple priests, and it’s believed that participating in or witnessing this ritual during Shrawan is especially auspicious. 

There are many legends and myths associated with the significance of the month of Shrawan. One of the popular myths is that the daughter of Dakch, Sati Devi sacrificed her life and was reborn as Parvati, the daughter of the Himalayan king. She wanted to marry Lord Shiva and went through tough fasting for the whole month. Pleased by the devotion of Parvati, Shiva fulfilled her wish. This is why women wear green clothes and fast in this month believing they will get a husband like Shiva. 

Another mythological story is the churning of the ocean (Samudra Manthan) by the Devas (gods) and Asuras (demons) to obtain the nectar of immortality (Amrit). During this churning, various divine gifts emerged from the ocean, including poison. To prevent the poison from spreading and harming the universe, Lord Shiva drank the poison. As a result, his throat turned blue, earning him the name ‘Neelkantha’ (the blue-throated one). In commemoration of this event, devotees offer prayers to Lord Shiva during the month of Shrawan.

Nilanthi Samaranayake is a visiting expert at the US Institute of Peace and an adjunct fellow at the East-West Center in Washington. She has 25 years of experience in the nonprofit research sector. Most recently, she served as director of the strategy and policy analysis program at CNA, where she led a team conducting multidisciplinary research and analysis for civilian and military leaders. Before joining CNA, Samaranayake analyzed public opinion at the Pew Research Center and completed a fellowship at the National Bureau of Asian Research.

Her work focuses on regional security in the Indian Ocean, smaller South Asian countries, non-traditional security issues, and US alliances and partnerships. Kamal Dev Bhattarai  of ApEx spoke with her on China-US contestation and implications for the South Asian Countries like Nepal. The views expressed are solely hers and not of any organization that she is affiliated with.

How do you see the US-China contest in South Asia?

Smaller South Asian countries are increasingly expressing concerns about maintaining their sovereignty and independence amid strategic tensions between large powers. Nepal, for example, was caught in this situation as a smaller state during the debate over the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). What should be a straight-forward effort to help meet development needs can quickly become politicized due to the backdrop of strategic competition. This pattern was seen in Sri Lanka with the MCC as well, but with a different outcome. The US withdrew its $480m offer.

It has been more than one year since the Biden administration came up with an Indo-pacific strategy, how are South Asian countries responding to it?

To understand how Smaller South Asian countries are responding to the Indo-Pacific Strategy, I recommend reading a recent East-West Center series with experts from Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka directly commenting on their own country’s responses. I served as a guest editor for the series.

The United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy identifies India as a major defense partner and discusses how the US will support India’s regional leadership. The strategy, however, does not mention any of the Smaller South Asian countries. This is an oversight that US officials may want to address in a future update because it represents a disconnect between US strategy and policy. In fact, a review of US policy in the region shows that Washington has clear interests and engagements with Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives along multiple lines, such as economics, development, security, and democratic governance. It even has common interests with Bhutan despite their lack of formal diplomatic relations.

How do you see India’s engagement with South Asian countries in the backdrop of growing US-China competition?

Regarding US-China competition, India is a major actor on its own terms due to its border conflict with China, which has included fatalities. As a result, India has sought to strengthen its relationships with the Smaller South Asian countries as tensions with China have increased in the past few years and as China has developed more active ties with these countries. 

India has conceptual frameworks for organizing its regional engagements such as Neighbourhood First and SAGAR (Security And Growth for All in the Region) in the Indian Ocean. As the US and India are deepening their relationship, underscored by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to the US, we also see the US supporting India’s security concerns about China in the Smaller South Asian countries. For example, US officials reportedly met with Sri Lankan leaders after India expressed its objections to Sri Lanka permitting a Chinese ship to visit the controversial Hambantota port last summer.

How do you see the position of South Asian countries in the Russia-Ukraine War?

This is a good question because Russia remains an important actor for Smaller South Asian countries, despite all the attention given to China’s role in South Asia. In March 2022, the UN General Assembly resolution on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka abstained along with India and Pakistan. Bangladesh, in particular, has found itself caught up in the debate over sanctions as it tries to pursue a power plant project with Russia. 

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka tried to enforce the sanctions, but had to back down after Russia suspended passenger flights for four months and affected tourism earnings during the worst of the country’s economic crisis. However, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives have voted at the UN in Ukraine’s favor. This is a strong stance for smaller states to take.

What are your suggestions for a country like Nepal in the conduct of foreign policy in the shifting geopolitical environment?

Nepal is navigating major power rivalry in ways that are similar to other Smaller South Asian countries. Yet its relationship with India is unique in terms of trade, people-to-people ties, and military cooperation. Nepal has arguably the most considerations to make as it manages its foreign policy with large powers.

I think the challenge for Nepal and other Smaller South Asian countries will be to maintain their focus on meeting national-level economic development needs and hitting targets like graduating from least developed country (LDC) status, while minimizing partisan and personality-based infighting in domestic politics to the extent possible.

Like many other words, ‘Parliament’ has more than one meaning. An assembly of a species of nocturnal birds of prey is one of them.  

‘Democracy’ has several strains the world over. But in a real democracy that does not run as per the whims and fancies of a ‘benevolent dictator’, two or one too many such figures, Parliament refers to one of the three organs of the state consisting of elected representatives, whose main task is to make laws. It is but natural for birds of a feather to flock together even at midnight and those populating our Parliament—one of the state organs—show such traits once in a while, not necessarily for the country and the people. Whether such an act is permissible or not, let the ‘Nepali lok’ decide. 

But no dictionary, legal or otherwise, has referred to words like ‘bedlam’, ‘chaos’, ‘anarchy’, ‘setting’  as synonyms of ‘Parliament’. 

In a democracy, the opposition bench has an important role in the Parliament. A strong opposition can do so much to make the government accountable, given that even in democracies that are not under tinpot dictators the executive shows tyrannical tendencies because of its right to exercise legitimate authority or violence over a given territory. 

The Parliament should belong to the opposition in the larger interest of the country and democracy. 

This does not mean, though, that the opposition should not play by the rules. In its conduct within the Parliament and outside, the opposition, as a vanguard of the democratic system, should also uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Its failure to do so will give the government a carte blanche to trample on the principles of separation of powers as well as checks and balances, and turn democracy into ‘demoncracy’. 

For about a fortnight, the main opposition has effectively stalled the Parliament demanding the formation of a high-level parliamentary committee to investigate as to how a 100-kg gold consignment passed through a high-security Tribhuvan International Airport. It has demanded that the Home Minister and the Finance Minister also be brought under the purview of the investigation, reasoning that the Central Investigation Bureau under Nepal Police may not have the wherewithal to grill the sitting ministers. Opposition parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party have also stood in favor of a high-level probe committee. Have they thought about the possible impact of their stance on the morale of the law enforcement? 

On its part, the government has asked that the CIB be given about a month for a credible probe into the case. With both the right and the left flank toughening their respective stances, the House has become a battleground of sorts and the Speaker has not been able to make peace. 

RSP and RPP have made one more point worth pondering over. They have accused the top brass of the three major parties of opting for a ‘setting’, a comfortable arrangement for opening and shutting the House at will.  

It is clear that the powerful troika cannot hold the sovereign body hostage forever. While a free and fair probe into the quintal-heavy gold cargo is important, the Parliament has a number of other important issues to deal with. Throughout the country, rain-induced disasters have wreaked havoc while troubles are brewing in the neighborhood and beyond. They all will have a huge bearing on an ill-governed and instability-plagued country. 

Both the government and the opposition must give up their my way or highway attitude. The Speaker should have read the riot act in time. Still, who else can act as a peacemaker and end this standoff if not him? 

Claims of political equality are central to the normative theories of democracy as contemporary democracy has transformed from the ‘politics of ideas’ to the ‘politics of presence’. The Lincolnian aspirations of democracy as “by, for, and of the people” suffice no more, for the rulers are the same, the co-optation of whom the political institutions serve is narrow, and the encompassing diversity in social positioning renders it difficult for empirical democratic practices to mirror the norms on political equality. In such a scenario, the ideals of inclusive representative democracy are still fractured by the lack of gender parity in formal politics. 

All over the world, politics has been a masculine domain and Nepal is no exception. The tussles between muscular presence leave minuscule space for women representatives. The positioning of women in society to a great extent corresponds to the political sphere, so the alienated experiences of women in the societal sphere seep their way into politics. Although some women representatives are presented at the forefront of politics, it’s men who still hold the strings. The structural positioning of women has indeed created biased experiences of political institutions against them, but it would be a reductionist statement to blame only gender by isolating other forces it interacts with as the stirring force of inequality in Nepali politics. 

Intersectional forces 

The fundamental goal of representation of women in politics is that “women bring to politics a different set of values, experiences and expertise” thus, the emphasis on equal representation of women and initiatives for affirmative action are taken. It justifies representation extended to women based on their essential identity rather than their social position. The former argument reduces women into a homogeneous group, who withhold similar interests—whereas, in the case of Nepal, this essential identity intersects with various dimensions of caste and class. Other variables such as ethnicity, religion, region, academic background, differed abilities, and sexual minorities purport these differences to create complex social positioning, which forms sectional and distinct identities of and as a Nepali woman. A Janajati woman, a Brahmin woman, and a Badi woman—all three will narrate to you three distinct experiences each has despite a compulsion to take up the universal identity of Nepali women; their narratives of oppression certainly differ. 

The identity as a ‘woman’ does not exist in a single axis but it is interactive with other compounding variables that induce social stratification such as class, ethnicity, geographical location, etc. Such inter-sectional identities form “minorities within minorities”. Although gender acts as a common ground, there are other bases on which the subjugation of already marginalized demography is purported; thus, the provisions that aim to provide representation appear as one-dimensional and fail to encapsulate diverse categories existent within its presumptive category of “women.”

The space as a de-facto woman leader in Nepal is acquired by a Khas-Arya woman. She is likely to have undergone some of the same experiences as a Dalit or a Janajati woman, more women from the upper strata of society reap benefits from the provisions on gender equality and inclusivity than the marginalized women. The talks, the bold ambitions on countering gender parity lie neglectful to the spirit of equal representation in Nepal—which is to bring into discourse, tackle, and best represent their constituents and their problems. The mere fulfillment of a statistical requisite is hailed as a mark of gender equality or an attempt to it whereas equity becomes a lost cause in representation. 

The contemporary spirit of representative democracy consists of the fundamental expectation that those who are being represented are mirrored by their representatives in terms of experiences of their respective socio-political life. Thus, an essential account of intersectionality as an ontology and method of ensuring representation is a prerequisite in the contemporary political scenario of Nepal.

Representation for recognition 

The phenomenon of the convergence of politics with identity and recognition is something that has amassed mixed reactions. The mainstream Nepali nationalism is always resistant to the rise of ethnic and regional nationalism. Anything that challenges or merely lifts the smokescreen of a universal identity of a Nepali citizen shakes the very spine of our vain slogans on “Vividhata ma ekata.” 

This pattern of creating a universal and reductionist identity follows a similar trajectory in creating the identity of a Nepali woman. What is woeful of the absence of recognition is not the lack of affirmation of identities but the captivity of distinct identities as one. Even within the groups that lie as subordinate, the existing inequality is fostered and a hierarchy is established within the subjugated categories of people. Such layered inequality is formed by an ever-present patriarchal bias at its foundation. 

It is high-time recognition is viewed as a political goal. For a nation, which places diversity as a defining attribute, a rather paradoxical stance is held when it comes to acknowledging “ the politics of difference.” The very same diversity that crafts the vanity of being a Nepali is construed as a threat when it comes to its acknowledgment. Representation of diverse identities in mainstream politics gives autonomy over creating one’s identity, selecting a narrative for themselves, which they were devoid of in the course of historical schema.

Thus, recognition is an antecedent to the affirmation of identities. Equal representation for women representation in Nepal is no political epiphany but  newer and broader discourses as to its necessity are in dire need to be entertained.