Submit your Article

There is an evolving global debate on the relation between technology and democracy: Have modern technology and its products strengthened democracy or have they weakened it? The jury is still out. Yet the deleterious consequences of the wrong use of technology on democracy can no longer be ignored. At its worst, technology can bitterly divide society and boost undemocratic actors. A good example of the divisive tendency of modern technology is social media. Consider the ongoing legal case of media personality Rabi Lamichhane. His supporters were quick to leap to his defense on Facebook. His critics were as ardent in trying to establish his association with a suicide. The two sides quarreled endlessly. Yet they had one troubling thing in common: neither side trusted state institutions to settle the case fairly.

In the same week, Prime Minister KP Oli conducted a cabinet meeting via a videoconference from Singapore. Nothing wrong with an innovative use of technology in governance. But the videoconference, it turns out, was held over an insecure internet line. A skilled hacker could have listened in to the confidential stuff that were discussed, compromising national interest.

It has now been established that Russian hackers had some (if not a decisive) role in the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. This shows that even the best of online firewalls can be breached. With more and more of our own electoral records being digitized, there is a legitimate fear that they too could be tampered with. Nepali hackers have already shown their prowess in tampering with the websites of our prominent state institutions. The rise of the deep web—a market for everything from illicit drugs to contract killers—poses another problem. The traffic to the deep web has supposedly increased following the government’s porn ban last year.

There is no going back on technology. But there must also be more education on its right use, perhaps starting with greater awareness on the use of social media. It is about time Nepali schools started relevant courses on online misinformation and hate speech. The state must also invest more in protecting sensitive digital information, be the records of bank clients or taxpayers.

Internet and technology have played a crucial role in democratizing access to information and modern-day comforts. But used the wrong way, they can as easily destroy democratic norms and values.

 Is it at all possible to revive the monarchy? Or the Hindu state? It’s incredible how these questions are being raised less than four years after the promulgation of the post-monarchial constitution of the new federal republic—a constitution that specifically designates Nepal a secular state. Despite all the conspiracy theories doing the rounds, it is hard to see how the monarchy, much reviled in its current avatar, can make a comeback. Besides the adverse public opinion, the political equations are not in its favor either; the parties still pitching for monarchy are miniscule, almost inconsequential forces.

There seems to be a greater constituency in favor of restoring the Hindu state, who are buoyed by the resounding reelection of the Hindu-nationalist BJP in India. Both domestic and international climates are ripe for the restoration of the Hindu state, its advocates say. Whether or not that is the case, there are many other reasons not to go down this perilous path. A modern nation-state is by nature secular, equally respectful of people of all faiths. With over 80 percent of its population comprised of Hindus, Nepal is already a de facto Hindu state. Nothing can change that. Making it a de jure Hindu state will be an exercise in futility, with no plausible benefits.

Why try fixing something that is not broken and invite unforeseeable troubles? Shouldn’t the energies of our political class be rather spent on making the new federal system tick and guiding the country on the path of peace and prosperity? We have already seen the grave consequences of the divisive nationalism based on religion and ethnicity championed by the likes of Trump, Modi and Erdogan. This is turn has resulted in the breakdown of social norms and decency and the steady erosion of democratic freedoms in these societies. The Nepali state taking up the cudgels on behalf of one particular religion will be similarly destabilizing.

Nepal is home to Hindus and Buddhists and Christians and Muslims and people of many other faiths. Except some sporadic troubles, they have mostly lived in harmony since millennia. Why do something that has even a small chance of disturbing that harmony? Having recently drafted a fairly progressive constitution, Nepali political class should be extremely wary of turning the clock back. Not least because it could be a slippery slope to the reversal of all post-2006 gains.

I guess you hear what you want to hear. Speaking before his parliament on August 6, a day after the Indian government announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status, Pakistani Prime Min­ister Imran Khan highlighted the urgent need to dial down tensions in the combustible, nuclear-armed region. With the ‘racist’ Modi government determined to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Muslims, there will be more home-made Pulwamas in India, he warned. In that case, India will again attack Pakistan, Pakistan will retaliate, and as neither side will back down, nuclear weapons could be used as a last resort. While Khan’s even-toned speech was largely hailed outside India, the Indians heard nothing but the threat of another Pulwama coming from the old arch-enemy. But as by far the weaker of the two powers in terms of conventional military strength, Khan is right that Pakistan will be more tempted to use nuclear weapons, which could then prompt a tit-for-tat response from India. You could argue Pakistan’s future course is not for Khan to decide. Invariably, it will be the all-powerful Pakistani military that will call the shots, including on nuclear weapons. Yet his message deserves a patient hearing.

By unilaterally changing the status of Jammu and Kashmir, India has reneged on its promise to the Kashmiris to allow them to decide their own fate. Chances are that the Hin­du-Muslim divide in India will further deepen and as Khan pointed out, there is now a real risk of another confrontation between India and Pakistan. China too has already spoken of its displeasure with the change in the status quo in Ladakh, which has now been designated a union territory that will be directly administered by the center—just like J&K.

It is likely that the RAW spooks and senior BJP leaders who descended on Kathmandu some time ago had intimated to Nepali leaders India’s future course in Kashmir and its impli­cations for Nepal. For one, India fears that after the change in Kashmir’s status, antagonized Muslims from there could make their way into Nepal, and use the open border to do harm to India. Kashmiri Muslims have been coming and set­tling in Nepal since the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, to the perpetual discomfort of the Indian security establishment.

The change in J&K’s status, long backed by the RSS, is indicative that the BJP is less queasy about showing off its saffron hues. It is not inconceivable that the emboldened RSS could make another determined bid for the restoration of Nepal’s Hindu status, if not its monarchy. The immediate neighborhood has certainly been spooked. But so have China and the US and other regional and global powers. (American President Donald Trump’s offer of mediation in Kashmir now appears ill-advised.)

The message is that the new Indian leadership is ready to stake its claim in the world, through hard power if need be. Another barely concealed message is that the new India belongs exclusively to Hindus, and Muslims there will have to be satisfied with second-class status. One thing is for sure: the already troubling level of tensions in South Asia is set to further rise. The dysfunctional SAARC may now be the least of the regional worries O

I guess you hear what you want to hear. Speaking before his parliament on August 6, a day after the Indian government announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status, Pakistani Prime Min­ister Imran Khan highlighted the urgent need to dial down tensions in the combustible, nuclear-armed region. With the ‘racist’ Modi government determined to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Muslims, there will be more home-made Pulwamas in India, he warned. In that case, India will again attack Pakistan, Pakistan will retaliate, and as neither side will back down, nuclear weapons could be used as a last resort. While Khan’s even-toned speech was largely hailed outside India, the Indians heard nothing but the threat of another Pulwama coming from the old arch-enemy. But as by far the weaker of the two powers in terms of conventional military strength, Khan is right that Pakistan will be more tempted to use nuclear weapons, which could then prompt a tit-for-tat response from India. You could argue Pakistan’s future course is not for Khan to decide. Invariably, it will be the all-powerful Pakistani military that will call the shots, including on nuclear weapons. Yet his message deserves a patient hearing.

By unilaterally changing the status of Jammu and Kashmir, India has reneged on its promise to the Kashmiris to allow them to decide their own fate. Chances are that the Hin­du-Muslim divide in India will further deepen and as Khan pointed out, there is now a real risk of another confrontation between India and Pakistan. China too has already spoken of its displeasure with the change in the status quo in Ladakh, which has now been designated a union territory that will be directly administered by the center—just like J&K.

It is likely that the RAW spooks and senior BJP leaders who descended on Kathmandu some time ago had intimated to Nepali leaders India’s future course in Kashmir and its impli­cations for Nepal. For one, India fears that after the change in Kashmir’s status, antagonized Muslims from there could make their way into Nepal, and use the open border to do harm to India. Kashmiri Muslims have been coming and set­tling in Nepal since the time of Prithvi Narayan Shah, to the perpetual discomfort of the Indian security establishment.

The change in J&K’s status, long backed by the RSS, is indicative that the BJP is less queasy about showing off its saffron hues. It is not inconceivable that the emboldened RSS could make another determined bid for the restoration of Nepal’s Hindu status, if not its monarchy. The immediate neighborhood has certainly been spooked. But so have China and the US and other regional and global powers. (American President Donald Trump’s offer of mediation in Kashmir now appears ill-advised.)

The message is that the new Indian leadership is ready to stake its claim in the world, through hard power if need be. Another barely concealed message is that the new India belongs exclusively to Hindus, and Muslims there will have to be satisfied with second-class status. One thing is for sure: the already troubling level of tensions in South Asia is set to further rise. The dysfunctional SAARC may now be the least of the regional worries O

The Nepali Congress and the RJPN, the two main opposition forces in the federal House of Representatives, have been obstructing the parliament since July 9. They want answers to the ‘extrajudicial killings’ of Biplob-led CPN cadre Kumar Poudel (whom the police supposedly killed in a shoot-out) and RJPN’s Saroj Narayan Singh (who was killed in police firing following a violent protest). Both these incidents took place in Sarlahi district. There are discrepancies in the police account of Poudel’s death, and some evidence that he was killed in cold blood. Likewise, the police arguably used excess force in quelling the riot in which Singh lost his life.

No doubt these are important concerns. But there is also a self-serving streak to this NC-led house obstruction. Following the restoration of democracy in 1990, the Congress used to complain about the ‘undemocratic’ practice of the then CPN-UML to repeatedly obstruct the house. (In 2000, the UML had obstructed the lower house for 57 days in a row.) But now that the Congress is in the opposition, it is doing the same thing, and it is the former UML party members who complain of the ‘undemocratic’ nature of the Congress. In reality, in the nearly three decades of post-1990 democratic practice, none of our major political parties has been serious about upholding the sanctity of the legislature.

Typically, important decisions are taken behind closed doors by a small coterie of top party leaders, and the parliament is used only to rubberstamp their decisions. Interestingly, only when the opposition has to obstruct the house do their MPs bother to turn up. On most other days, the parliament is deserted, with not even a third of the MPs in attendance. And nearly all the top leaders and ministers are missing as well. In fact, in the broader public imagination, the parliament has been reduced to a venue where there is unanimous agreement on perks and privileges for the MPs—and on little else.

But the parliament is where people’s chosen representatives discuss the problems and concerns of their constituencies. These may be related to lack of drinking water, a faulty transmission line that is disrupting electricity, or a patchy bit of road that is hindering transport—the issues of real concern for most folks. By sidelining these issues our MPs are also abdicating their core responsibility.