Submit your Article

The government’s reluctance to release the new National Security Policy (2019), endorsed by the cabinet on March 18, is both intriguing and troubling. The policy, consid­ered the country’s ‘second constitution’, is by nature a consensual document, prepared after extensive consultations with multiple stakeholders. But only a select few drafted the policy under the leadership of Defense Minister Ishwar Pokhrel, and without consul­tations with other important stakeholders, including the main opposition Nepali Congress. What does the government have to hide?

We can make a few educated guesses. Reported­ly, the document is rather political: the ruling party’s slogan of ‘Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepalis’ finds repeated mention in it. Mixing partisan politics with national security is never wise. Second, the new policy apparently gives the Nepal Army a predominant role in national security, while undercutting the roles of other security organs. (Recently, the Oli government had also amended the National Security Act to give the prime minister the power to deploy the army under ‘special circumstances’.) The two police forces feel left out.

Third, the new policy reportedly mentions “block­ade” as a major security threat to Nepal, in reference to the 2015-16 Indian blockade. It is to be avoided at all cost, including perhaps by enhancing connectiv­ity with China. The fear is that India may not be too pleased with this mention. But these are lame excus­es for not consulting vital stakeholders and preparing such an important document on the sly.

The underhand manner in which the whole affair has unfolded does not befit a government with an overwhelming public mandate. The centralization of powers in the PMO and the army will be inimical to the health of the nascent federal republic. Such centraliza­tion will make provincial governments uneasy, and lend credence to the voices of those who believe the Oli government is on the path of authoritarianism. Its recent crackdown on press freedom and curtailment of civil liberties have been hardly assuring. To allay doubts about its intent, the government should imme­diately make the policy public and take it to the nation­al parliament for further discussions. The National Security Policy is not just the government’s policy but also a guiding charter that affects every section of the society. Nepalis deserve to know what is in it.

The recently appointed 18 High Court judges have taken their oath of office. The five new judges nominated for the Supreme Court will face a parliamentary hearing in the next few days. Yet the storm of controversy the Judicial Coun­cil’s judge nominations kicked up refuses to subside. Rightly so. At stake is no less than the judiciary’s inde­pendence and impartiality.

The all-powerful Nepal Communist Party runs the federal government. Likewise, Nepali Congress is easi­ly the single biggest opposition party. Even as the two parties differ on myriad other issues, they were ready to divide the judicial nominations among themselves, making a mockery of the concept of parliamentary check and balance. The Congress likes to rail against ‘creeping authoritarianism’ of the communist govern­ment. Yet few take it seriously because on matters of mutual interest, it readily colludes with members of the same government. No wonder PM Oli so easily dis­misses the opportunistic NC leaders.

With a clear majority of political nominees, the composition of the Judicial Council that nominates high-level judges is flawed too. In its current form, it is hard to see it acting impartially and picking judges based on their qualification and competence rather than their closeness to this or that political party. A recent conference of judges rightly asked for the coun­cil’s rejigging so that those from a judicial background are in the majority.

What is happening right now is state capture by stealth, as the ruling alliance slowly tightens its grip on all levers of power. The compromised judiciary, instead of being neutral arbiters of disputes, including the con­stitution’s sole interpreter, will increasingly be behold­en to their political masters, to grave consequences for the health of Nepali democracy.

The NCP already has an absolute hold on the execu­tive and the legislative and only the judiciary seemed capable of holding it to account. But on current form we will see an increasingly pliable judiciary that has no authority besides rubberstamping the government position on vital issues. The parliamentary hearing committee can still stop this travesty of justice at the apex court. Even though the committee too is packed with members of the ruling alliance, people’s chosen representatives are expected to act in the public inter­est. Otherwise, why have such hearings at all?

In retrospect, almost everything seems obvi­ous. The Meteorological Forecasting Divi­sion of the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology should obviously have better pre­dicted the devastating windstorm that swept across Bara and Parsa districts on March 31, killing at least 28 people, destroying 1,000 homes, and rendering 1,200 locals homeless. Why didn’t the division warn on time, even as its Indian counterpart had come up with clear warnings about severe weather events around the same area that day? Our weather center is incompe­tent—it’s tempting to conclude.

But as tragic as the loss of human lives and proper­ty has been, things are not so straightforward. What happened on March 31 was unprecedented. Yes, our weather folks could have been better prepared, but when the weather deteriorates so fast, and over such a limited area, useful predictions are hard to make, even with the best of equipment and manpower. And even if there had been such a warning, would people have heeded it? After all, India’s better warning systems could not prevent the death of 42 people from severe storms in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan last year.

Scientists expect the number of extreme weather events in the world to keep increasing, reaching dou­ble the current levels by the close of the 21st century. Anthropogenic climate change is largely to blame. It’s a bitter irony that smaller countries like Nepal and Bangladesh that are likely to face the brunt of climate disasters can do little on their own to limit the damage. Of course, that does not mean we should be fatalistic and do nothing. We can improve our weather forecast­ing systems, for instance, by quickly installing all three of the proposed radar stations around the country. We should also help those of lesser means to build sturdier houses that can better withstand extreme weather.

Rather than panic about our likely failure to pre­dict the next big one, there is a need for a sober anal­ysis of what is realistically possible to forecast in an increasingly unpredictable global climate system. The US says up to 200 million Americans are at an imminent risk of flooding in their communities in the upcoming hurricane season. Hardly reassuring. Euro­pean weather-watchers are bracing for an equally unpredictable summer. So let us be better prepared. Let us also make a vigorous case for mitigating global warming with the big polluters, for our own good and for the good of the planet.

Outlawing the Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplob’-led Communist Party of Nepal is justified. The party has, in recent times, acted more like a criminal-cum-terrorist outfit than a political party: spreading terror by detonating bombs in various public places, killing an innocent person, shaking down businesspersons, and reportedly plan­ning the assassination of political leaders after raising a private militia. So long as it doesn’t abandon its ter­ror tactics, there is no point in talking to it. But even then, Prime Minister KP Oli’s ultimatum to the outfit to either surrender within a week or be effectively wiped out was uncalled for.

Expecting Biplob to agree to a humiliating surren­der is highly unrealistic. Instead of issuing such base threats, PM Oli, as head of government, should have been more conciliatory. He should have said the gov­ernment is ready for talks if Biplob puts down arms, now or at anytime in the future. Ultimately, there is no alternative to talking things through, and it is unbe­coming of someone in the prime minister’s chair to spit venom.

In retaliation for the ban, Biplob has announced a series of protest programs, including strikes and bandhs. Although the government claims it can wipe out the party swiftly, the public is rightly skeptical. It will be nigh impossible to stop the kind of hit-and-run attacks from Biplob that had become a signature of the decade-long Maoist insurgency of which he was an integral part. The fear his party has now generated is palpable too. Schools and colleges are already plan­ning to shut down on the days of the protests, and busi­nesses fear a new cycle of extortion.

Again, that the government is acting tough against a group that has adopted terror as its modus operandi is understandable. But if the CPN is ready to disarm, there should always be room for talks. With the govern­ment seemingly committed to a showdown, there will be no incentive for Biplob to give up violence.

There is no room for violence in a civilized society. But peaceful means of dispute resolution should be open for everyone, including Biplob. It is unfortunate that the prime minister has become hostage to par­tisan politics, trying to portray Biplob’s CPN as ‘pseu­do-communists’, apparently in contrast to the ‘real’ ones in the government. Oli should instead be acting in the country’s interest.