Submit your Article

It has been more than a decade since Chinese President Xi Jinping came up with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a massive infrastructure project, to enhance both hard and soft connectivity with countries in the Global South. In this period, over 150 countries have signed the BRI documents, and Chinese foreign investment in those countries has exceeded $60bn.

Nepal signed up to the BRI in 2017, and ever since it has been a thorny subject that has divided the political parties and the public. Over the past few months, there has been a heated debate regarding the controversy over the Chinese side claiming the newly opened Pokhara International Airport being a BRI project. In the parliament as well as in public forums, ministers and politicians face this question: Is Pokhara International Airport under BRI? While they insist that it is not, many are not convinced. 

A few days back, speaking at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee, Foreign Minister NP Saud said that Nepal has not executed any projects under the BRI. Tourism Minister Sudan Kiranti has also been making a similar statement. But the Chinese side seems adamant in their position that all of its recent bilateral cooperation with Nepal falls under the BRI framework. In meetings with Nepali politicians and officials, the Chinese side has even presented some basis for such a claim. But top leaders of major parties have not spoken a single word about it, nor has the Nepal government officially taken up this issue with Beijing.  

China is of the view that since Nepal has become a BRI member, whatever cooperation happens between the countries falls under the broader framework of the BRI. This not only includes the development of  infrastructure projects, but also the aid that Nepal received during the Covid-19 pandemic. For China, the 14-point agreement signed during President Xi’s 2019 Nepal visit is the basis of that claim. 

The second paragraph of the first point in that agreement says: “Nepal and China take the Belt and Road Initiative as an important opportunity to deepen mutually-beneficial cooperation in all fields in a comprehensive manner, jointly pursue common prosperity, and dedicate themselves to maintaining peace, stability, and development in the region.”

On the basis of this point, according to a senior diplomat who recently met with Chinese Ambassador Chen Song, the Chinese side is claiming that all projects are under the BRI.  

During Xi’s visit, Nepal and China agreed to elevate the bilateral relationship into a Comprehensive Partnership of Cooperation. A few months ago, in a closed-door discussion with editors, the Chinese ambassador said they regard Pokhara International Airport as a BRI project, but it is okay if the Nepal government does not say so.

As the BRI debate rages on, China has come up with Laws on Foreign Relations, which is likely to complicate the matter.  The law shall apply to the conduct of China’s diplomatic relations with other countries, its exchanges and cooperation with them in the economic, cultural, and other areas, as well as its relations with the United Nations and other international organizations. 

Article 18 of the laws says: “China calls for putting into action the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilizational Initiative (GCI), and endeavors to advance a foreign affairs agenda on multiple fronts, at a different level, in various areas and of multiple dimensions.”  

Programs under the GDI, in collaboration with the UN agencies, have already been implemented in Nepal. As far as the GSI and GCI are concerned, the Nepal government has not made any position on it. 

China is seeking Nepal’s support in GSI and GCI, but Nepal is not willing.  But Beijing has already put the GSI and GCI under the broader framework of BRI. 

China’s BRI claim resembles the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) of the United States in Nepal. Since 2018, American officials have been saying that whatever bilateral grants and assistance the US provides to Nepal is under the broader IPS framework. The US officials often say that there is no military component in Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), though it is a part of the IPS. So, like the IPS, the BRI is gradually becoming a hard-to-understand issue after 10 years of its launch.  

Upendra Gautam, a China expert, says like the US is saying that all its assistance falls under the IPS, China too is saying the same thing regarding the link between its support to Nepal as part of the BRI.

“It is either IPS or BRI, it is up to us how we deal with those countries,” says Gautam. “Now the Chinese officials are linking the BRI with financial institutions. If there are any issues, we can communicate with the Chinese side.”

The debate and controversy surrounding the BRI has also been fueled by the lack of homework and research that Nepali leaders and government ministers lack. The form and nature of BRI is gradually evolving with more components, and no one seems prepared. 

Of late, the Chinese side has been insisting on the implementation of BRI in Nepal. Recently, Home Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha and Chairman of the National Assembly Ganesh Timilsina visited China. 

In meetings with Timilsina and Shrestha, high-level Chinese officials underlined the need for the implementation of the BRI in Nepal. 

The BRI issue is likely to figure out when Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal visits China later this year.

In Nepal, BRI is primarily perceived as an infrastructure project, though it has five distinct priority areas: policy coordination, infrastructure connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration, and connecting people.

Not only on BRI, but China’s claim over other initiatives such as Global GSI, GDI and GSI has also put the Nepal government in a quandary. During the Dragon Festival organized in Pokhara recently, Chinese Ambassador Chen raised eyebrows by saying that the festival was the implementation of GCI.

China was partly emboldened to make such a claim also partly because former President Bidya Devi Bhandari attended a virtual program of the GSI in September 2022. Bhandari had taken part in the program despite the Ministry of Foreign Affairs advising her not to. 

When National Assembly Chairman Timilsina visited China in the second week of June, Zhao Leiji, chairman of the People’s Congress

In the second week of June, he held discussions on the BRI and other initiatives with Zhao Leiji, chairman of the People’s Congress, and other Chinese officials. 

In one of the meetings, the Chinese side also thanked Nepal for supporting GDI and welcomed the support and participation in the GSI and GCI for jointly promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in the region and the world. 

China’s claims on the BRI and its other latest programs like the GSI run counter to Nepal government’s position, which states that there have not been any official decisions yet and that all the initiatives put forth by China are being studied.  

Nepali leaders are adopting a very cautious approach regarding China’s unilateral claims. On the BRI, Nepal is not in a hurry to take a loan to construct infrastructure because there are already questions about financial viability and sustainability of some projects, such as Pokhara International Airport, Gautam Buddha International Airport, Kathmandu-Terai Fast-track. 

Over the past 10 years, there have been a lot of changes in the original BRI document. China has emerged as a lender of last resort for developing countries that are having difficulty repaying their BRI debts. 

According to the AidData report, by the end of 2021, China had undertaken 128 rescue loan operations across 22 debtor countries worth $240bn. These operations include many so-called rollovers in which the same short-term loan is extended again and again to refinance maturing debts. 

Learning lessons from many countries, China is now cautious to provide loans under the BRI, while Nepali leaders are also equally careful to avoid a potential debt issues.

Dengue is an infectious disease transmitted through mosquito bites. It is transmitted by female Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes carrying the dengue virus. In the previous year, there was a significant increase in dengue cases during the July-August period. Consequently, disease control and prevention have become a major concern for us this year. As we approach the next two months, which are particularly worrisome, it is crucial for all agencies to remain alert.

While dengue has not yet reached epidemic levels, there have been approximately 1,400 reported cases of the disease this year. The primary symptom of dengue is fever. Therefore, when you have a fever, you should go to the hospital instead of staying at home. Dengue is diagnosed based on symptoms, and unfortunately, there is no cure for this disease. Resting at home is the primary treatment, although approximately one percent of patients may develop more severe infections requiring hospitalization. We have already disseminated instructions, emphasizing the importance of specialized treatment for such cases.

The main concerning issue is that patients often delay seeking medical attention until symptoms manifest. Moreover, there are also cases where patients do not exhibit any symptoms at all. This resulted in approximately 54,000 cases recorded last year. Therefore, it is imperative to take necessary measures to prevent a recurrence of last year's situation, and we are actively engaged in addressing this concern.

The federal, provincial, and local governments have different responsibilities. However, by working in harmony, as we did during the covid pandemic, we can effectively manage dengue. Discussions have been held with officials and health workers in the Kathmandu Valley, wherein we have agreed to promptly implement programs aimed at controlling dengue. The local units have committed to organizing clean-up campaigns every Friday. Dengue testing kits have already been distributed to the relevant agencies.

We have come to realize that coordinating with local authorities is essential for successful dengue control measures. Hence, last year, we initiated dengue control efforts in collaboration with local authorities. This year, we have requested the local units to continue their participation in these initiatives, and our expectations have been conveyed to them through the health ministry.

There are no weaknesses in the state's policy system. During an epidemic, the central government assumes a leading role, and the policies formulated in this regard are robust. However, if there is a consensus that these policies are insufficient or require modifications, we are open to discussions. It is crucial for everyone to come together to effectively control dengue.

The author is secretary at Ministry of Health and Population

The judiciary is tasked with defending the rule of law and guaranteeing justice for all, making it a crucial cornerstone of any democracy. The Nepali court, however, has long faced difficulties that limit its efficiency and undermine public confidence. In this essay, the situation of the Nepali court is examined, with a particular emphasis on the problems of incompetence and corruption plaguing it.

The Nepali court has struggled with inefficiency, which has resulted in a backlog of cases and delayed justice. This issue is exacerbated by a shortage of judges, poor infrastructure, and out-of-date legal procedures. A tremendous burden for the current judges has been caused by the relative lack of judges in comparison to the population, which has caused significant delays in the settlement of cases. In addition to undermining public trust in the legal system, this violates their fundamental right to prompt justice.

The basic underpinnings of the legal system are being undermined by corruption, which is a disease. In Nepal, corruption has crept up into the ranks of the court, undermining public confidence and skewing the administration of justice. The integrity of the court has been seriously undermined by the prevalence of bribery, nepotism, and political interference in judicial nominations and case results. Honest persons are deterred from pursuing legal recourse when they believe that the judicial system is corrupt, which feeds the injustice cycle.

The judiciary's independence and impartiality are further weakened by political meddling. Judges are now frequently appointed on the basis of political affinities rather than merit, which damages the judiciary's authority. Political demands and interference in high-profile cases frequently result in biased decisions, undermining the judiciary's position as the last arbiter of justice.

A lack of accountability mechanisms within the judiciary allows misconduct and malpractices to go unchecked. The absence of effective mechanisms to investigate and prosecute corrupt judges enables impunity and perpetuates a culture of wrongdoings. The absence of transparent systems for evaluating judicial performance and disciplinary action further exacerbates the problem.

The Nepali court needs urgent changes if it is to escape the shackles of inefficiency and corruption. First and foremost, more judges are required in order to lighten the load on the current ones and speed up case resolution. Efficiency can also be increased by updating the infrastructure, using technology, and simplifying the legal process. Mechanisms for accountability and transparency must be improved in order to guarantee that judges are held accountable for their acts. In addition, rigorous safeguards must be put in place to deter political meddling and guarantee the independence of the court.

The Nepali judiciary is in a precarious position and has a bad image due to corruption and incompetence. Restoring public confidence, upholding the rule of law, and delivering prompt justice to citizens all depend on overcoming these obstacles. Nepal can free itself from the shackles that constrain its judiciary and pave the path for a more just and equitable society by effecting comprehensive reforms, improving openness, and fostering accountability.

Cooperatives are not in the pink of financial health, again. A high-interest, low-risk business model floated to prospective depositors to draw their hard-earned savings has holes in it as it became clear during the first wave of the cooperatives crisis prominently featuring the Oriental Cooperatives et al.

It will be contextual here to mention Oriental for a number of reasons. First, it was the ‘unsinkable’ Titanic that capsized in the roiling waters of largely unregulated financing in 2013 amidst a housing crisis with deposits worth billions of rupees, belonging, by and large, to members of the general public. Secondly, per rumors mills spinning at that time, that firm had some very powerful leaders of equally powerful parties behind it. The claims that they had their not-so-well-gotten money stashed in that firm’s vaults may not be entirely untrue as none of the accused has bothered to come clean on a serious allegation like this.

Also, as it became evident that the firm was on the verge of collapse, one formidably powerful politician managed to withdraw his fortunes real quick, while thousands of other depositors had no such access. At that time, several other cooperatives went the Oriental way, with hard-earned money belonging to thousands of individuals. This crisis has caused untold miseries to the depositors and their heartbreaking sagas are yet to be written.  

The collapse of the cooperatives one after the other points at a serious systemic ill: The lack of a government regulator and the culture of impunity.  

Shockingly, a section of the ‘authorities concerned’ washes its hands of these firms. It believes that these firms lie in a gray zone. Their line of argument is that neither the firms fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Central Bank nor that of the Department of Cooperatives.

With friends in high places, it is but natural for them to have scant regard for commoners’ hard-earned savings. This hands-off attitude is also to blame for the cooperative crisis. 

What’s more, there’s a tendency to take the firms as a laundromat of sorts, used to turn black money into white. If such is the case, why can’t the government conduct a probe, prosecute the guilty and cleanse the whole damn system? Is it easier said than done or will it boomerang?  

Driven perhaps by this mindset, the government has done precious little (or has it?) to rein in these firms even after the sinking of the ‘Titanic’ and other vessels in the choppy waters of unregulated financing with billions of rupees belonging to not-so-powerful depositors. 

Even after robbing the depositors of their small fortune, those involved in the multibillion rupee scam are going scot-free, making a mockery of the government. The onus is on the government to end this culture of impunity for this serious white-collar crime and see to it that the depositors get their life’s savings back.