Submit your Article

Late Madan Bhandari, the vet­eran UML leader, often shared a concern with me—that the communist movement was weak in Madhes. Following the 1991 par­liamentary elections, he came to the conclusion that the communist movement had had some impact on places close to the east-west highway, where a significant number of Nepali speakers reside, but not in areas further south.

Bhandari’s goal was to achieve ‘people’s multiparty democracy’ (Janatako bahudaliya janabaad or ja-ba-ja in Nepali) through parlia­mentary elections. Ja-ba-ja is con­sidered his brainchild. In the UML’s fifth general convention, he had formed a taskforce to address the Madhes problem. He did so with a recognition that Nepal’s communist movement could not incorporate the country’s diversity, was confined to people from a single community and has made historical errors. The convention came up with a docu­ment identifying major issues facing Madhes and possible ways to resolve them. But this idea died with Bhan­dari’s untimely demise.

The Nepali Congress had led the democratic movement of 1950-51 and had won a two-third majority in the country’s first parliamentary elections in 1959. Following the 1960 royal coup, not only was the Con­gress government overthrown, but the party ended up becoming the primary nemesis of the palace.

The main reason why the left is weak in Madhes is that several com­munist leaders had welcomed some of King Mahendra’s decisions that were not in favor of Madhes. The palace had also promoted some communist leaders—not to truly strengthen them, but to enable them to fight the Congress so that the Panchayat system could benefit. What the Madhesis understood from this was that the communist leaders were not on their side, but on the side of the king who had taken steps against the welfare of Madhes.

Another reason was that Madhes was the center of the Congress’s activities. When the party was banned, its leaders, who were in exile in India, entered Madhes on the sly and carried out their activi­ties at night. As a result, the relations between the Madhesis and Congress leaders got closer. Communist lead­ers, on the other hand, could not establish themselves in Madhes. They remained busy hurling accu­sations—of being revisionists, oppor­tunists, rightists, etc.—at each other.

Madan Bhandari thought of these as the historical reasons behind the failure of the communist move­ment to gain a foothold in Mad­hes. Unfortunately, no UML leader showed an interest in this issue after his demise.

The Maoists waged a decade-long armed struggle against the state in 1996. They were not very active in Madhes in the initial days of the con­flict. Later, they coopted various eth­nic groups into their struggle—not to emancipate them but to expand the war.

During the constitution-writ­ing process, there were attempts to undermine various progressive agendas like federalism and inclu­sion that were raised by earlier struggles. And a constitution was promulgated in September 2015 amid protests and disagreements. The Madhesis felt betrayed as their long-held demands and the assurances they had been given were not incorporated into the con­stitution. They started doubting even the Nepali Congress, a party that has had strong roots in Mad­hes. The feelings of betrayal, dis­content and doubt were openly expressed in various Madhes movements.

The policies, principles and con­duct of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP), which came into being after the merger of the erstwhile UML and Maoist Center, are not friendly toward the Madhesis and Tharus. Some of them still voted for these parties. But the votes are not a reflection of the NCP’s popularity among the Madhesis, merely their dissatisfaction with the Congress. Votes are cast only during elections; they only have short-term impact.

The NCP does not have a clear stance on the Madhes question. Madhes has a class problem, but Nepali communists have already abandoned their class struggle. They also lack a vision for greater inclu­sion of Madhesis in party and state structures. The communist par­ties should seriously reflect on the reasons behind their unpopularity in Madhes.

Of the 165 electoral constituen­cies in Nepal, as many as 59 have a significant Madhesi population where winning a seat is not possible without their support. No party can easily win a parliamentary majority if they give short shrift to 59 constit­uencies.

Moreover, our electoral system—with its first-past-the-post and pro­portional representation elements—makes it difficult for any single party to win a majority. The erstwhile UML contested the 2017 general election as a coalition partner of the Maoist Center; it will be difficult for them to win similar number of seats if they participate in future elections as a single party.

About a third of the Madhesi peo­ple are committed Congress voters; they don’t expect much from the party but will keep voting for it irre­spective of what it does or who it fields. The remaining 70 percent voters are divided and vulnerable to indoctrination from various extrem­ist forces, be they regional, religious, ethnic, communal or separatist. This is an objective analysis of Mad­hes and a real danger.

South Asian politics revolves around winning elections by attack­ing the weaknesses of one’s oppo­nents, not by performing well. If this trend continues in the next election and the ruling NCP fails to attract voters, there is a real chance that we will end up with a hung parlia­ment, whose pain we have endured in the past.

It’s our misfortune that Nepali political parties are more focused on party-building than on nation-build­ing. It’s been one and a half years since the formation of this two-third government, but the NCP is still busy finalizing party structures. Main opposition Nepali Congress is embroiled in internal disputes and factional politics.

Our new constitution states that Nepal is a ‘socialism-oriented’ coun­try. But the term has not been prop­erly discussed and is interpreted differently by different parties. The Congress says it is democratic socialism; the communists claim it is scientific socialism. Those with a socialist bent have a different definition.

No one wants to define it pre­cisely, lest it gives rise to a conflict. As a result, the word ‘socialism’ has been a tool to sow confusion among the Nepali people. Political parties should discuss it honestly and explain what exactly is the kind of socialism they aspire to.

The author is a lawmaker in the federal lower house

 There’s a strange dichotomy that has developed in the climate debate in the United States. One group, known as the “denialists”, insist humans and fossil fuel have nothing to do with climate change. They may be asso­ciated with the oil lobby, or the Republicans, or the feminist-hat­ing men, or the Antifa opponents, or the right-wing extremists. In any case, they’ve decided to put their eggs in the “Denial” boat, just because in the US you have to take a strong position in any pub­lic debate, and this sounds like the right position to take. Their way of life is under attack and they’re going to hunker down and deny they have a hand in the world’s chaos. The other side embraces science, and refute the denialists. This discourse has taken on com­plex moral undertones, especially among the science stalwarts who are outraged that the denialists are ignoring the real science, and focusing only on beliefs.

This narrative, which is repeat­ed over and over in the American press (although thankfully not in the presses of other democra­tized countries), has also led to a fervent push for “science.” When Greta Thunberg got onto her little sailboat to sail to New York to talk about climate change, a banner in the background clearly states: “Unite Behind the Science.” When the National Geographic chooses women scientists to go and mea­sure the levels of plastic in the Ganges, they make a special point that only science can resolve this— and nothing else. Only science. Anyone else who dares to breathe a different opinion is automatical­ly labeled a denialist (in the US) and a Hindu fundamentalist, or BJP, or a saffron loving extremist (in the Indian subcontinent.)

I find that problematic, if only because modern science, which is touted as the solution to the plastic crisis and the fossil fuel debacle, is in fact the cause of our current environmental prob­lems. The most obvious example: there would be no plastic with­out science. Bakelite, also known as polyoxybenzylmethylengly­colanhydride, was developed by the Belgian-American chemist Leo Baekeland in Yonkers, New York, in 1907. Bakelite was desig­nated a National Historic Chem­ical Landmark by the American Chemical Society on 9 Novem­ber, 1993, in recognition of its significance as the world’s first synthetic plastic. We know the importance of bakelite, but we don’t know whether the chemist asked the right questions when creating it. Did he, for instance, think about the consequences of his invention when making it? Or was the invention itself the only important end-goal, and all social, moral and ethical consequences of his actions were elided in this eureka moment?

Modern science has been fueled by this pure pursuit of power and recognition, with no mor­al or ethical check-and-balance to keep it on track, unlike the scientific pursuits of an earlier age. The inventors and chemists of the Reinaissance where kept in check by the religious clergy and the philosophers. But since the 19th century, capitalism has been the moderating principle behind science.

Modern science operates in a narrow, blinkered manner, look­ing at one small problem at a time, unconcerned about its impact on the macro scale. Because scientif­ic work is incremental, nobody is responsible for the final product. No international forum or law court holds a scientist account­able for mass extinctions if they create a toxic pesticide that col­lapses the colonies of all bee spe­cies, or if they create a plastic which clogs up every waterway on earth. No scientist, engineer or technologist is responsible for fossil fuel inventions and their impact on air, water and human health. Scientists are only accountable to their patrons in the industries or in the military, and to the stockholders of the companies who they work for.

Whoever creates the most pat­ents wins the most money, lead­ing to a mad rush for funding, with military and government the first entities turned to for sup­port. How can science fueled for military purposes or for indus­trial capitalism be anything but destructive? But these questions are never raised in academia.

Somehow we are made to believe this very science which will again cure the looming exis­tential threats. A group of women scientists picking up the thread of a plastic bottle to the Ganges will suddenly cure the scourge of plastic, as if through the divine intervention of their female pres­ence and their STEM skills. We are asked to give up our supersti­tious non-scientific beliefs, and yet the alternative offered is again belief—belief in the all-curative powers of modern science.

If “snake-oil” refers to a decep­tive concoction with no real medicinal value which is sold as a panacea for all ills, then modern science is as much a snake-oil discipline as those thought up by any wily salesman of the past. While I admire good science (yes, there are some people still doing that), I don’t think this deified, adored and much adulated dis­cipline offers the world-changing paradigm we need to shift away from our current destructive ten­dencies towards a more simple and sustainable way of life. That will come from moral arguments and ethical frameworks, both of which has been missing from Western epistemologies for the past two centuries of rape and pillage of the earth. This will come from legal action and polit­ical will, international solidari­ty and global awareness, all of which is rising above the dom­inance of science to define this existential crisis .

What PM KP Oli did on the evening of August 20 was unprecedented. He hastily summoned an all-party meeting to discuss ways to preserve the post-2006 political gains. In the meeting, he pointed out how the new federal republic was facing a great threat from the far left (Biplob and company) as well as the far right (the ex-mon­arch and the parties supporting monarchy’s revival.) The meeting was called a day before Indian Minister for External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar was scheduled to arrive in the Nepali capital for the fifth meeting of the India-Nepal Joint Commission. And two days before PM Oli was to go to Singapore on an extended medical leave. As many analysts have pointed out, the timing of the all-party meeting was no coincidence.

 In this reading, the prime minister seems worried that at least some parts of the Indian establishment are back to using their old bag of tricks in Nepal. Just like India had at one point leveraged the presence of the warring Maoists on its soil to extract concessions from Kathmandu, it is giving shelter to Biplob Maoists in case it needs to put the ‘pro-China’ Oli on notice. Likewise, the saffron-clad government of Narendra Modi wants to see the revival of the Hindu state, perhaps even the monarchy.

But why would India try to undermine a system that it itself carefully cultivated starting with the drafting of the 12-point New Delhi agreement in 2005? For one, the political establishment behind that agreement comprised the more secular-minded Indian National Congress and Indian com­munists, and definitely not the BJP. With the BJP government in India looking to undo everything associated with the INC, perhaps it is attempting a ‘course correction’ in Nepal as well. Perhaps when Pradeep Giri, who has always been close to the Indians, talks about the possibility of Nepal’s absorption into India a la Sikkim, he was really on to something.

Or perhaps all these are idle speculations among Nepalis long used to spinning conspiracy theories about Indian ‘grand designs’. Correlation, after all, is not causation. Maybe PM Oli, who will likely need another kidney trans­plant, was worried that he may not have much time on his hands, and just wanted to warn his political brethren about Nepali extremist groups and the threats they pose while he still could.

Yet it is easy to make out that not everything between Nepal and India is hunky-dory. In Nepal for the Joint Commis­sion meeting, Jaishankar was non-committal about the most important issue for Nepalis: Modi’s refusal to accept the joint EPG report. There could also be no substantial progress on any of the pending issues, from Mahakali to the postal high­way. Just the fact that it took this long for a high-level Indian official to come to Nepal speaks volumes about the state of Nepal-India ties. Maybe the Indians wanted firmer support from Nepal on J&K, which they didn’t get. Maybe Nepal, whose government is routinely painted as China-leaning in New Delhi, cannot be easily trusted. Or maybe something more sinister is afoot. Whatever the case, the post-blockade rapprochement between Kathmandu and New Delhi is still very much a work in progress

There are nine categories of endangerment from ‘extinct’ to ‘not evaluated’. The latter meaning there is no concern of endangerment. While this species is not yet on the ‘endangered’ list it appears to be very much on the ‘vulnerable’ list. We might ask ourselves when this species moved from being of no concern to being ‘vulnerable’. A quick Google check is quite an eye opener; for it all started in 2017 with a nine-year-old American boy!

Milo Cress, nine, started the cam­paign against… plastic straws! Since then many large companies and even major cities have banned this invasive species. July 2018 saw Seat­tle banning plastic straws and in January of this year Washington DC followed suit. With McDonalds, Starbucks and some airlines phasing plastic straws out, could its days be numbered?

More than a year ago I also took a stand and started requesting cafes not to give me a plastic straw. I brought from the UK packets of metal straws which I handed out to friends. At that time there were very few cafes in Kathmandu doing away with the multi-coloured, attractive, yet non-essential, plastic tubes. Since we like-minded friends all drink in Curilo Café, the wait­ress there was very quick to pick up on this and started offering the plastic straw alongside, not inside, drinks. You could then decline if you wanted to.

As far as I know Soma Café was the first to ban plastic straws altogether. Since then more and more cafes and restaurants around town are using paper or metal straws. This week I bought a drink from KFC and they provided a very clumsy paper straw. But paper nevertheless. Mankind has been using straws since around 3,000 BC. In Nepal tongba has always been served with bam­boo straws; I have yet to see it served with a plastic straw. So maybe the habit of using natural straws just needs to be reinstated.

I guess we have all seen the video of the rescued sea turtle that had a plastic straw pulled from its nose. I think that, along with numerous videos of islands of plastic floating on the world’s oceans, has really brought home how effective human­kind has become at destroying the planet. But with no ocean in Nepal, and with fires containing plastic burning pretty much 24/7 around town, why have we in Kathmandu simultaneously and without col­lusion decided to send the plastic straw into extinction?

It’s a question I don’t have the answer to. I know for me, I have reduced my use of plastic bags considerably but do still accept some. They, terrible as they are, have a reusable purpose as a gar­bage collector, a wet swimsuit bag, or container for potentially leaky items. But the plastic straw has no value whatsoever when its three minute life span is complete. Yet some people, children in particu­lar, do like the excitement of draw­ing a drink up through a tube. If you think back, wasn’t it only on special occasions you got a straw in your drink? Definitely a ‘good time’ apparatus!

Enter, or should I say, re-en­ter the paper straw! Paper straws have been around a long time but they used to instantly turn soggy. Or were chewed up by young kids within moments. But today the paper straw has becoming stronger and more viral!

Naturally, banning of plastic straws is not going to save the planet or reduce the ocean’s plastic islands. It is only the tip of the iceberg. But, since it seems mainly the younger generations that are killing off this species, maybe the plastic straw is the gateway to more personal, then community, then country-wide restrictions on single-use plastics. Let’s hope this vulnerable species continues its journey to endanger­ment then ultimately to extinction!