Submit your Article

The winter months have always been the peak protest-time in Nepal. This winter, the two main sets of protestors squaring off against each other belong to the same political party. Each faction of the Nepal Communist Party has declared a ‘third people’s revolution’ against the other. Yet protests of a different kind are also happening all over the country: the protests against the persistent rape culture. 

Enraged women have taken to the street following the rape-and-murder of 17-year-old Bhagirathi Bhatta of Baitadi district of the Sudurpaschim Province. Bhatta was raped and strangled to death on her way home from school. The crime is eerily similar to the rape-and-murder two-and-a-half years ago of 13-year-old Nirmala Pant of Kanchanpur district, also in Sudurpaschim. In fact, the two bespectacled victims look hauntingly similar.

As happens with most rape cases in Nepal, police never solved the Pant incident. Bhatta’s friends and relatives fear a similar fate. The fear is legitimate. Despite making big strides in women’s empowerment over the last 15 years, Nepal is still a highly patriarchal society that looks upon women as second-class citizens—even the country’s constitution discriminates against them. 

Now a new law makes it mandatory for women who want to go abroad to first seek the consent of their family and local ward office. Separately, the menstrual huts have long been banned and yet Nepali women continue to die from cold and animal bites after being thrown out of their homes during their periods. This is another illustration of the patriarchal state dictating how women should lead their lives. And if a woman is sexually abused or raped, it’s likely her own fault: she wasn’t wearing right clothes, she was being needlessly bold. 

This entrenched patriarchal mindset of feminine inferiority makes state institutions hesitant to investigate cases of violence against women and to punish the guilty men. Crimes of sexual violence are increasing, yet only the most gruesome ones come to light. It is men who impose this culture of silence. Yet the same men are expected to act as women’s protectors, 24-7, as is evident in the new requirement for women leaving Nepal. The protesting women are saying Nepali women don’t need men to guard their purity and conduct. What they ask for are equal laws and their equal applicability. 

Instead of elections, which Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has announced for April-end, the country seems headed for more political confrontation. The rival Nepal Communist Party Dahal-Nepal faction has upped its ante against House dissolution. The opposition parties and a big section of the intelligentsia are on the street, protesting the ‘unconstitutional’ dissolution and ‘illegal’ appointment of officials to constitutional bodies. On the other hand, the NCP’s Oli faction has ramped up its poll preparations. All this is happening even as House dissolution as well as the Oli government’s other controversial decisions remain sub judice at the Supreme Court.

As the government head who called for elections, it is PM Oli’s responsibility to create a conducive climate of trust. If he does want elections, why make controversial appointments to constitutional bodies and further provoke his political opponents? How will such unilateral and legally questionable decisions help build trust for elections? Even in more stable times, April-end elections would have been nigh impossible, with all the logistical challenges they entail. This in turn boosts the claim of his critics that the announced elections are just a gimmick to prolong PM Oli’s tenure.

The strange thing is, right now, even the legal route to elections has not been cleared. Oli’s supporters urge their critics to wait for the apex court verdict, which is a sound legal advice. But legal niceties, say his critics, can be dispensed with when the country’s democratic process itself is on the line. Whatever the merit of their contrasting arguments, neither side has the right to use violence to press its case. Yet, as things stand, more violence has become inevitable.

Whether or not the House is restored, there is no option to going to the people for a fresh mandate. A restored House will also be bitterly divided, and it will be impossible to get anything done there. So, politically, the Supreme Court verdict is really irrelevant. This is why it is important to create broad political consensus on viable election dates and remove the disquieting state of uncertainty. But, again, the onus of taking those on the street into confidence on this lies with the prime minister—in what will also be a test of his faith in the democratic process.  

All Nepalis have the freedom to practice their religion, including Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Yet his new-found penchant for Hinduism is still odd, as he has never been a religious person. In fact, as a communist, he abhors all religions. Notably, it was under his leadership that the secular 2015 constitution was promulgated. But, suddenly, and without a shred of evidence, he now claims Lord Ram was born in Nepal. He has also started offering ‘lakhbatti’ in Pashupati. Oli is clearly calculating: having called for mid-term polls, he is now looking to cash in on the pro-Hindu sentiment.

Oli has for some time been angling for the support of the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party. He is also rumored to be exploring a ‘Hindu alliance’ for the upcoming elections. That would be unwise. Nepal’s Hindu status, many argue, should be restored as it is over 80 percent Hindu. But this argument can easily be turned on its head: there really is no need to ‘protect’ the Sanatan Dharma that is being practiced by so many. If anything, it is other religious minorities like Buddhists, Kiratis, Muslims and Christians who need to be protected from the Hindu majoritarian impulses vote-minded politicians could fan. 

Oli is now inclined towards Hinduism, now that the Nepal Communist Party he co-led is imploding and his grip on power is slipping. Religion is an emotive issue and perhaps the easiest with which to sway the masses. As the BJP’s anti-Muslim fervor in India suggests, it can also be combustible, and easily used to divide societies. The historically uneasy relation between state and religion is the reason they are kept separate in most modern nation-states. Nepal has already had its share of conflicts over the past few decades. The last thing it now needs is a religious strife.

This is a message not just for Oli. There also exist strong pro-Hindu lobbies in opposition Nepali Congress and Janata Samajbadi Party, Nepal. Rastriya Prajatantra Party has always been a staunch pro-Hindu force. They would all do well to keep religion out of politics in national interest. There are far too many constitutional, political and socio-economic problems left to be fixed without the country also having to deal with religious tensions. It would be unfortunate if next set of elections, whenever they take place, were to be largely decided based on people’s religious sentiments.

The million doses of Covid-19 vaccines that arrived in Nepal from India on Jan 21 represent the tip of the iceberg of what is needed to inoculate the country’s 29 million population. Nepal for instance will need around 40 million doses of the kind India gave: around 72 percent of the population has to be inoculated, each person twice. India provided the first million doses free of cost. But future consignments will not be free. Besides India, cash-strapped Nepal is also looking at China and Russia as potential suppliers; if they don’t charge us, so much the better.

Navigating the vaccine minefield will be tricky. First, some vaccines Nepal may get may not have been scientifically tested, or at least not with the expected rigor. Multiple concerns have been raised regarding the safety of various Indian, Russian and Chinese vaccines. If different vaccines are given to different people, how can broad immunity be assured? What if some vaccines are dangerous? This is why, as far as practicable, and even if it means paying a bit more, Nepal should look to import one proven vaccine in large doses. (The Oxford- AstraZeneca vaccine that came in the first consignment from India certainly meets scientific standards.)

Another problem will be the delivery and dispensation of vaccines. Frontline workers like hospital staff and police personnel, the first group to be inoculated in Nepal, will have to wait for at least a couple of weeks before their first jab. Apparently, those administering the vaccine will first have to undergo training. And who ensures the vaccines are going to the right people—that they won’t ‘disappear’ from hospital freezers and end up coursing the veins of the highest bidders?

But before all that, we will have to get the required number of vaccines. Russia, it had been reported in some quarters, was ready to offer us 25 million doses of its Sputnik V vaccines. But then the news was refuted by Nepali officials. As of now, there is no clarity on where the remaining doses are coming from. The government would do well to issue regular updates on its procurement process and on how the vaccines will be handled and equitably delivered.