Submit your Article

In a recent interview with nepalpress.com, an online news portal, Prime Minster KP Oli unconditionally condemned the bloody crackdown on Myanmar’s peaceful protests. He wished for swift restoration of the democratic process and the country’s return to normalcy. It was not Nepal’s official statement on a foreign country. But the statement of one country’s head of government on another country, wherever it is made, must be considered the position of his government.

This hasn’t stopped Nepali Congress and JSPN lawmakers from asking for a formal government statement on Myanmar, where the military has shot dead at least 500 people. Separately, a group of civil society members have called on Nepal to join international efforts to make the Burmese junta accountable for its murderous rampage. The high level of public and intellectual support in Nepal for Myanmar’s pro-democracy protestors partly owes to the large Nepali diaspora there. The presence of an estimated 300,000 Burmese of Nepali origin in Burma can be traced back to the Second World War when they fought there on behalf of the British.

Our earnest wishes aside, the country of 54 million that has always been under the shadow of its powerful military is unlikely to revert to democratic rule soon. Some smaller democracies in the region—especially the ones that don’t share a border with Myanmar—may speak out against the atrocities there. As will leading global liberal powers like the US and the EU. But the two countries that are best placed to effect change in Myanmar—China and India, in that order—will remain mum.

The largest democracy in the world has sealed its lips, nay, it even participated in an army parade in Naypyidaw on the bloodiest day of the military crackdown on unarmed people. As more and more countries turn inwards, strategic calculations have come to prevail over humanitarian ones even in liberal societies. India fears Myanmar could be slipping into complete control of China, which is already Myanmar’s largest trading partner as well as the biggest source of its FDI. An overt stand against the junta, India fears, could make the country tighten its embrace of China. Not to forget, the junta also has the power to foment unrest in the northeastern Indian states bordering Myanmar.   

China and the Burmese military are not the best of pals these days. Beijing believes the junta is placing unnecessary hurdles before crucial BRI projects, partly to prove its nationalist credentials. The Chinese will nonetheless be loath to let the international community dictate terms in Myanmar, even if it’s for the noblest cause. As Beijing sees it, what happens in Myanmar could be repeated in Taiwan or Hong Kong. So China, as well as Vladimir Putin’s anti-Western Russia— and another permanent member of the UN Security Council—won’t allow the Security Council to take strict measures against the junta.

Has the narrative of absolute national sovereignty gained such traction in global affairs that all possible humanitarian interventions abroad will look dubious from now on? Some Madhesi lawmakers in Nepal compared events in Myanmar today to what has happened in Madhes during its various uprisings. Is that a credible comparison, and will such comparisons help or hinder the cause of the Burmese people? The comparison also raises another important uncomfortable question: what should be the grounds for foreign intervention in Nepal on humanitarian grounds?

All the modern expertise of conflict resolution is, at the best, flawed. It stands on the “two or more parties” notion and tries to fix it there. To an extent, it’s okay because they try to reconcile the parties that are stuck with “I’m right, you are wrong” attitude. Skilled conflict managers try bringing the parties to talk, encourage them to stand in the others’ shoes and look at things from the others’ viewpoint. If done well and if the parties are open enough, there is a chance of success. The unskilled ones will simply use reward or punishment to shut them up and make peace.

In the less developed world, we are more used to shutting them up and making peace. But we are also learning the other approach from the West, thanks to all the development in social sciences, and the theories of human rights, peace, conflict management, and so on.

All this is fine. By whatever means you resolve conflict, that’s awesome. Except there’s a little problem. You cure only the symptoms and not the cause. For, in this whole business of conflict resolution, there is little effort in allaying the “I versus others” mentality.

A different model of conflict management has existed for ages in the East, specifically in the Indian and Himalayan regions. This is not a model of reward or punishment, neither is it of stepping in the other’s shoes. It’s a model of knowing that there is no ‘other’ out there whom we can reward or punish, or in whose shoes we have to stand. It’s a model of knowing that the ‘other’ is only a fiction, projected on a fictitious screen by our own confused minds.

Just like we too are fictions, created by our confused minds. In the Eastern spiritual systems, this fictitious ‘I’ disagrees with that fictitious ‘other’ on totally fictitious grounds for some equally fictitious idea. As soon as we understand this, the whole plot drops. The fictitious stage crumbles and the show of conflict comes to naught.

Of course, it sounds high. But that’s the point—it sounds high because it is high! What the Buddha or Krishna or the countless Himalayan sages taught in this hallowed land has the highest knowledge possible to the human race.

It’s a different thing that we have forgotten their teachings. When people in Nepal and India spend months and years reading conflict management theories from the West, and our NGOs spend millions in conflict management workshops, it seems to me like we are sitting on a heap of 24-karat gold and spending hardearned money to import some gold-lookalike from Morocco.

The cause of conflict lies in the human psyche, in what we generally understand as ‘ego’—which runs the entire show. It is what we usually identify ourselves with— race, religion, ideology, beauty, money, and what not. This play of ego—self-identity—is nothing but an illusion. When one understands it, there is no self-identity to hold on to. When the understanding deepens, first the idea of ‘identity’ and then even the idea of ‘self’ dissolves and one stops seeing any difference between oneself and others. Our illumined masters tell that in that state of deepest realization, all duality between ‘I’ and ‘others’ drops, and everything becomes part of one consciousness.

Perhaps we will have a little idea of it if we pause here and ask: Who is the one that is reading this piece of writing? Is it the eyes? Is it the brain? There are trillions of cells in the eyes and the brain. Which one of them is ‘I’? Ok, I may not be any of those cells, nor the back muscles that are now aching. But I feel the back pain anyway, so who is it that feels it? Where in the body is this ‘I’ located?

Of course, we cannot find or locate it. The more we try to find the ‘I’, the more elusive it seems. So it may not exist at all! But it exists, because we feel we are. But did it exist before birth? And what happens to it when we die? Does it just fizzle out?

We will not get an answer to any of these questions. Let’s not try even, or we might get further confused. A great deal of preparation is needed to know the nature of ‘I’. The good news is that our illumined sages have made it easy for us. We know, reading them, that at least we are not what we think. And there is not much difference between this ‘I’ of mine and the ‘I’ of others. Actually, there is no two at all—there is no ‘I’ and others! We are all flimsy compartments of one big whole separated by these illusory I’s!

For now, let’s understand it only conceptually. When we have enough motivation to go deeper, we can start with preliminary meditation practices and take baby steps toward the real understanding of ‘I’. If it’s the highest knowledge, it cannot be assessed by chance or by shortcuts. You cannot just jump onto the moon to have a look at the earth.

So how do we use this knowledge for conflict resolution? Well, we don’t need a real experiential understanding of not-two—the non-duality of ‘I’ and ‘others’. We can start with a conceptual framework, and gradually work to have experiential understanding. When we set ourselves on the path of such realization, when we actually understand the truth of not-two, of non-duality, we get to the root of resolving all conflicts. After all, where is the ‘other’ to have conflict with?

Who does the forest belong to? In this day and age when everything is about give-and-take, one must question what the forest gives and what it takes from us. Most people see forests as habitats for trees, birds and wildlife. But humans too find serenity in the woods. An admirer of the Northern Lights, forest fires used to allure me. Now the destruction they have unleased in Nepal tears my heart apart. 

Forest fires have led to a huge loss of biodiversity. Their effects are quickly spreading across borders and threatening global ecosystems. Just recall the recent fires of the Amazon and Australia. It was a herculean task to control fire in those roadless forests, and the months-long blazes caused massive destruction of wildlife. Presently, in Nepal, almost all 77 districts have been affected by forest fires. As a result, air pollution has risen to unprecedented levels. Still, no measure seems to control them seems to be in sight. An increasing number of people are reporting eye infections and inflammations from the haze that has enveloped cities across the country.

Forest fires are quite common in Nepal during the dry season, which spans from beginning of April to the onset of monsoon in June. Normally, there are two categories of forest fires: ground fires and crown fires. In Nepal, ground fire (also called creeping fire) is the most common. It can be natural also but most fires are man-made. We all are aware of the careless passersby who toss burning matches into dry leaves amid dry trees.  

We know fire is a good servant but a bad master. Controlled burning is sometimes needed in certain patches of forest. The top soil is often filled with litter which ignites easily and when burnt, the ashes help improve soil fertility and help plants regenerate. But this takes place only over a small area to fulfill local people’s needs. But often people living near forests deliberately start fires to induce fresh shoots of trees to use as fodder for livestock. For this petty reason, people set the forests on fire. Is this is an act of stupidity, ignorance or innocent greed, we can’t say? 

The destruction people are inducing today is huge. Even breathing has become difficult when there is fire over the whole country. Have people become so blind that they aren’t willing to see the bigger picture? The man-made fires have not only killed thousands of innocent wildlife—from the smallest of insects to megafauna—but humans as well.

One small haphazard step can lead to huge destruction. Though the forest ecosystem is self- sustaining, nature is losing its sustenance due to human interference. Policy level intervention is imperative, but then these policies are seldom implemented at the local level. With scientific forest management being blatantly discouraged, forest officials have limited funds for forest protection.

This year the forest department had to face huge loss in terms of finances, which has slowed down managerial interventions. We can definitely connect the dots. Further, community forests also have struggled to effectively continue previous operation plans. As a result, forests lack a fire line to control fire. Simple efforts could have saved thousands of hectares of forest land. 

Several acts, laws, regulations and strategies have been employed to manage forest fires. The Forest Act of 2049 B.S. clearly includes captive punishment and penalties against the crime of inducing forest fires. Community forest operational plan includes construction of a fire line and its maintenance, which is awaiting implementation.

An uphill fire is naturally far more destructive than a down-hill one. Moreover, the loss is irreversible with huge amount of carbon released through smoke and smog, resulting in climate change. Theft of many forest products is a direct economic impact. Wildlife migrates towards the edges of the forest to escape fire, which further causes human-wildlife conflict.

Again, a fire line is one of the most effective approaches to minimizing the risk of wildfires in forest areas, as it creates a gap in forest cover which acts as a natural barrier to slow down wildfires. This issue extends beyond boundaries, henceforth an international level policy and its local level implementation is imperative.

Awareness is the key to prevent forest fires. Volunteer groups for fire management in local communities, and incentives and rewards for people who work to prevent and control forest fired will help. Locals must also be trained to control forest fires. 

Every day, when we see flames rising with the night lights, why doesn’t our heart burn? Why don’t we feel a need to act? 

Of course, we may doubt the impact of our efforts. But we need to remember that “every single effort counts”. So let’s not hesitate to do what we can. Let’s see to it that our lives are not set ablaze along with our forests. 

(The author is a graduate of Institute of Forestry, Hetauda)

In a 2020 interview with ApEx, Mashfee Binte Shams, Bangladesh’s outgoing ambassador to Nepal, had pointed out the culprit behind the paucity of bilateral trade: “Businesspeople in Bangladesh think of Nepal as a very small and hence an unprofitable export market. They think Nepali markets are dominated by Indian exports… In the case of Nepali people, they think Bangladesh is a poor, starving, poverty-ridden country which does not have purchasing power”. Perceptions die hard. There was thus skepticism over the recent state visit of President Bidya Devi Bhandari to Bangladesh. 

The two countries at their closest are just 27 km apart, making Bangladesh Nepal’s second closest neighbor after India. Bilateral trade between them was worth just over Rs 6 billion in 2019/2020, with Nepal importing nearly five times as much as it was exporting to Bangladesh in this time. Trade experts say the volume could easily rise tenfold. By 2040, Bangladesh hopes to import 9,000 MW of electricity from Nepal, and has already pledged over $1 billion for hydropower development here. A Nepal-India-Bangladesh power transfer agreement is in place as well. 

Yet progress in bilateral relations has been slow, partly because of India. New Delhi has been reluctant to give free passage to goods between Nepal and Bangladesh over security concerns. The 27-km stretch between the two countries falls within India’s ‘chicken-neck’, the narrow strip of land connecting mainland India and its northeastern states. The corridor also touches Bhutan and China’s Tibet. Heightened India-China border tensions could further restrict free movement in this region. 

This means Nepal and Bangladesh will continue to feel unjustly victimized by the regional ‘big brother’. It was in order to collectively fight India’s regional hegemony that the two countries took the initiative for the formation of the seven-country SAARC in late 1970s. If smaller countries in the region didn’t together fight for their interests, they calculated, India would continue to expand its hegemony at their expense. China was not a big part of their calculus back then. It is now. 

The establishments in both Nepal and Bangladesh feel secure in China’s embrace. Make no mistake. They also want cordial ties with India. It could hardly be otherwise given their historical legacies and their location. But China has emerged as a partner of choice for an increasingly authoritarian Sheikh Hasina government, who is getting all the money she needs from China, no questions asked. To an extent, the same dynamic is at play in Nepal, which too has long chaffed at being surrounded—in every imaginable way—by India. 

China has emerged as a useful bargaining chip for them. India has been reluctant to open its chicken-neck for more Nepal-Bangladesh trade. But it has had to concede that if it does not facilitate regional integration and trade under its watch, China will do so under its own initiative like the BRI. This explains the greater willingness in New Delhi for regional connectivity initiatives (minus Pakistan).  

Rivalry between big powers often opens up maneuver-room for smaller actors. The old axiom that Nepal will not look to play off India against China is repeated so often precisely because we are not being completely honest with India, and they know it. Yet India often plays along because of its own limited hard power and the improbability of stopping China’s rise. Tactful diplomacy in Kathmandu and Dhaka could thus open many new opportunities for bilateral trade, travel and investment.