Submit your Article

What difference a couple of years make in diplomacy! Two years ago, India had imposed a crippling economic block­ade on Nepal to express its dissatisfac­tion with our new constitution. The understanding in New Delhi was that while its concerns were neglect­ed in the new charter, the statute had the blessings of Beijing. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his henchmen seemed determined to teach a harsh lesson in geopolitics to the ‘China-hugging commies’ of Nepal, with Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli at their vanguard.

Two years later, the same Modi is rolling out the red carpet for Oli as he prepares to welcome perhaps the strongest prime minister in Nepal’s democratic histo­ry. Having badly bungled its relations with Nepal—sup­posedly one of its closest friends in terms of cultural similarities and people-to-people ties—and pushing the Himalayan country into ‘China’s open arms’, New Delhi, we now hear, is in a mood for a ‘course correc­tion’. Hence the lavish reception for Oli and India’s new-found interest in reviewing bilateral relations, including a rewriting of the infamous 1950 treaty.

Oli, with his new-found strength, could argu­ably have broken the outdated tradition of a Nepali prime minister always making New Delhi his first foreign stop, as if on a solemn pilgrimage to please the holy deities due south. But Oli perhaps thought it unwise to rock the geopolitical boat this early in his tenure. He did however commit not to sign any agree­ment in India that “goes against national interest and disgraces our country”. We hope the prime minister honors his words.

Reportedly, he will leave for China not long after returning to Nepal on April 8. He is scheduled to meet President Xi Jinping at the sidelines of the Boao Forum in Hainan. After inking multiple pacts with India, PM Oli, in his subsequent visit to China, is expected to sign another slew of agreements to operationalize the land­mark trade and transit agreement of 2016. He has to be extremely careful though. His ability (or lack there­of) to balance India and China will define not just his government leadership-Round Two but also his larger political legacy—long after he is gone from the scene.

At this early stage, he deserves our benefit of the doubt, as we have argued before. It would be wise to wait for a while before we judge his tenure, including his foreign policy. A single India or China trip does not a long-term strategic vision make.

The European Union Election Observer Mission contends that the constitutional provision for proportional representation in Nepal is flawed, in that the PR quota includes “well represented social groups such as Khas Arya”. Whether the PR system is flawed or not, it is beside the point. Our constitution is not flawless, and it will be amended as and when needed. But what to amend and when should be entirely up to Nepali actors. It is particularly baffling when responsible members of the international community—among them those who first defined the concept of sovereignty for nation-states no less—poke their nose into a purely internal matter for Nepal.

We fully support the prime minister when he says no attempt to disturb social harmony in Nepal will be tolerated. KP Sharma Oli, who now commands absolutely majority in federal as well as all seven provincial assemblies, is arguably the strongest prime minister of democratic Nepal. It is good to see that at least in his early days he is clearly spelling out our national interest, and making it crystal clear that the days when foreigners could openly meddle are over. The foreign ministry, under the competent hands of Pradeep Gyawali, also deserves credit for its swift and unambiguous rebuttal of the provocative observer mission report.

Foreign envoys in Kathmandu traditionally enjoyed outsize clout as our political leaders were always at their beck and call. There is no shortage of leaders in Nepal who have asked resident Indian envoys to place their children in good Indian universities, or those who have finagled cushy trips to China from resident Chinese envoys. Our MPs and ministers, over the years, have also been a little too eager to go on all-expenses junkets to the US or Europe, often by compromising the country’s interest.

It is too early to say whether Oli’s ministers will be any different. But early signs are encouraging. Now that Nepal has a constitution as well as a strong government elected under it, the prime minister also made it clear that political inputs from the outside are needed no more. Of course, if our foreign friends want to help Nepal in its new quest for equitable economic development, or if they are keen to pursue mutually beneficial deals, they are most welcome.

The new rule of engagement for foreign actors could not be simpler: if you want to do business in Nepal, you will have to learn to play by our rules, just like we play by yours when we are on your territory.

On March 15, in arguably the country’s biggest sporting achievement till date, the Nepali men’s cricket team secured the One Day International status. The new status allows the team to play ODI cricket for the next four years. In this period, besides the ODIs, the men in blue-and-red will also get to play in the InterContinental Cup, a com­petitive four-day precursor to the five-day Test cricket.

On his triumphant return home, skipper Paras Khad­ka said Team Nepal’s next target is the ODI World Cup. With the players having done their bit, he added som­berly, the onus is now on the government to improve Nepali cricket.

He was right on the mark. The Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) was suspended by the International Cricket Council in 2016 due to excessive government interference. In its absence, domestic cricket has suffered and Nepal’s international participation been severely curtailed. Without the lifting of the ICC sanctions on CAN, it will be hard to build a robust domestic base, the only surefire way to do well in international cricket.

In the meantime Nepal can play ODIs even with the sanctions. Having secured the ODI status, Nepal gov­ernment can now directly negotiate with other Test- and ODI-playing countries for bilateral (or trilateral) games. During his recent Nepal visit, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi had hinted of ‘cricket diplomacy’ with Nepal. This is the perfect time to not only approach Pakistan, but also our other cricketing neighbors like India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Perhaps the biggest signal of the seriousness to improve Nepali cricket would be for the new government to immediately resolve the old row over CAN leadership and appoint a new, non-polit­ical governing body consisting strictly of ex-cricket­ers. No more politicians or their henchmen running Nepali cricket, please. The paltry pays and perks of Nepali cricketers should also be raised. This in turn will prompt other youngsters to take up the game as a viable career option.

The next four years will be make-or-break period for Nepali cricket. If Nepal cannot capitalize on this rare opportunity, there is no shortage of countries that are keen to snatch Nepal’s ODI rights. If that is allowed to happen due to continued neglect and political interfer­ence, it would be a huge breach of trust of millions of Nepali cricket fans.

Accidents happen. On March 11—the day before the US-Bangla aircraft crashed at the TIA killing 51 people, including 22 Nepali nationals—a Turkish plane had crashed in Iran; all 11 on board died. On the same day, a sightseeing helicopter crashed in New York (five dead). Even on the day of the US-Bangla crash at the TIA, another small private airplane had crashed in Chicago (no casualty).

But all aviation-related accidents have a cause. For a modern aircraft with all its safety equipment to crash, something, somewhere should be badly amiss. A commercial passenger jet, like the one that came down at the TIA on March 12, is particularly tailored to deal with any kind of on-air emergency.

From what has emerged about the TIA crash in the media thus far, a few things become instantly clear. There was a clear gap in communication between the air traffic controllers (ATCs) at the TIA and the US-Ban­gla pilots. It appears that the two pilots were confused about the exact approach of landing. This is surprising as the aircraft’s captain was said to be experienced in landing at the TIA. Perhaps he was tired and disorient­ed: reportedly, the Dhaka-Kathmandu flight was the captain’s fifth of the day.

The air traffic controllers, for their part, appeared incoherent and failed to give clear instructions to the aircraft on how to proceed with the landing. But, as our main story this week clarifies, the final decision on landing the plane and keeping the passengers safe was with the in-flight captain. He could have chosen to land from any direction he saw fit. Which brings us to the gist of the matter: the most tragic aspect of this accident is that it could have been averted.

To ensure that such accidents are not repeated, our ATCs need to be better trained to communicate clearly in English, the language of international avi­ation. The accident should also spur authorities to expedite the process of TIA’s expansion. It badly needs another runway. Or perhaps speeding up ongoing con­struction works on the two alternate international air­ports is the right way to go about it.

But it is as much a responsibility of international air­lines to make sure that their pilots are in proper mental and physical shape to fly. It would be unjust to blame the ATCs alone.

Yes, accidents do happen. But a lot can be done to minimize the chances.