Submit your Article

India’s Minister for External Affairs S. Jaishankar pitches for a realism-based Indian foreign policy in his new book, The India Way. The book dwells on India’s neighborhood, in depth, but it does not mention Nepal—not once. He writes of the need to revive SAARC in order to rekindle the spirit of regionalism in South Asia. Yet as that is currently not feasible because of an obtrusive Pakistan, he advocates for the promotion of alternate regional frameworks like BIMSTEC. 

Having previously served as India’s ambassador to both US and China as well as its foreign secretary, Jaishankar has had a ringside view of the power dynamics between the most important global actors today. He foresees more friction between these states as they increasingly turn inward. In this self-centered world order, India, he says, should abandon its traditional non-alignment for multi-alignment—ditch its old ideological hangovers in order to increase its options. 

He thinks India should play a non-reciprocal and more active role in South Asia and help regional connectivity. Separately, as a sitting foreign minister, he cannot be critical of the current Indian establishment or of other big international actors he has to deal with daily. Yet China’s rise, its greater sway in India’s immediate neighborhood, and China’s evergreen friendship with Pakistan clearly bother him. 

He wants to ditch the old ‘Dogmas of Delhi’ and forge ahead with a more pragmatic approach. Yet the fact is that Delhi’s dogmas continue to have great sway in South Asia. Ironically, in a perfect illustration of the southern neighbor’s big brother attitude, then Indian foreign secretary Jaishankar had come to Kathmandu in 2015 to lecture Nepali leaders on constitution-making. The dominant perception in New Delhi is still that South Asia is India’s inviolable backyard. 

Not that Jaishankar in unaware of the contradictions in India’s current foreign policy outlook, as he also flags in the book. But he says some contradictions are inevitable as India pursues a more realistic foreign policy. For instance, Prime Minister Modi is as comfortable jetting into Islamabad unannounced to greet Nawaz Sharif on his birthday as he is dropping bombs on Pakistani soil in retaliation for acts of terrorism.  

Of course, Jaishankar also entirely sidesteps the rise of Hindutwa and its impact on India’s foreign policy. Amit Shah’s alleged remarks about establishing BJP governments in Sri Lanka and Nepal aside, the BJP government in India does want to export Hindutwa to Nepal and reestablish the old Hindu state. Jaishankar also skips the rise of illiberalism in India and its direct or indirect export in the neighborhood. Oli for one is learning rather quickly from his nationalism-whipping, rule-bending Indian counterpart.  

There is also a clear hint that India will work closely with the US under the Indo-Pacific Strategy, as well as with the rest of the QUAD members, in what amounts to an unacknowledged admission of India’s limited capabilities to check Chinese designs in the region.  

Jaishankar is right that nationalism has gotten a boost in the post-covid world where everyone is more and more looking after their own interests. Therefore India too should not resist, he suggests, from baring its fangs in pursuit of a larger national interest. (Perhaps the blockade on Nepal was a part of the same game-plan.)

Wonderful that Jaishankar envisions a South Asia united by Indian non-reciprocity and connectivity initiatives. Yet there has always been a gulf between what India says and what it does. In fact, India’s problem with delivery is one reason the likes of Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Bangladesh these days rely more on China to get things done. That perception of India being an unreliable friend will be tough to change. 

On 5 February 2021, China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi had a telephone conversation with Nepali Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali. In the call, Wang said China attaches great importance to Nepal’s urgent vaccine needs, promising Nepal the first batch of its vaccine assistance, and facilitating the country’s further procurement of vaccines. 

 Vaccines are vital to controlling the pandemic, protecting people’s lives and wellbeing, and in restoring the economy. The pandemic has had a great impact on countries around the world, especially developing ones. Due to its weak public health structure, Nepal’s traditional response to epidemics has been poor, and this is where China can help.  

Virus does not recognize nationality, national boundaries, or people’s economic circumstances. As many countries need to be vaccinated as soon as possible in order to achieve mass immunity, and to return to a state of normal trade and people-to-people exchanges. Covid-19 vaccine has become the top priority for the Nepali people to curb the spread of the virus and save lives. Especially with the emergence of mutated viruses, the desire for vaccines has only grown.

Nepal and China are good neighbors linked by mountains and rivers and partners who trust each other. Since the establishment of diplomatic relations, the mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries has continuously expanded and traditional friendship has deepened. Their relation is now a model of equal treatment, friendly cooperation and mutual benefit between neighboring countries. The people of the two countries share the feelings of mutual benefit and mutual learning, believing the towering Mt. Everest (Mount Qomolangma) bears witness to a long history of exchanges between them, and the endless Himalayas are a link of friendship. 

China and Nepal have been helping each other since the first outbreak of the pandemic. At a time it was most difficult for China to fight Covid-19, Nepal extended a helping hand. Similarly, China has provided Nepal with anti-Covid materials such as testing reagents, masks, protective clothing and vaccines, as well as other support according to the needs of the Nepali people. The goal is to together overcome the pandemic and promote common development for the benefit of the two peoples.

At a time countries the world over are fighting the pandemic, as a major vaccine producer China has ditched vaccine nationalism. It has rather declared vaccines as global public goods, providing 10 million doses of vaccines to a number of developing countries, including Nepal.

This not only demonstrates China’s role as a great power in international affairs, but also highlights the practical actions it promotes for the development of strategic partnership between the two countries.

Vaccines are life savers, not political tools. Some media outlets have termed China’s vaccine assistance as “vaccine diplomacy”, with the vaccines regarded as “political weapons”. China is supposedly conducting vaccine diplomacy by exporting vaccines, in the hope of enhancing its international reputation and influence. Apparently, some other countries are also into this vaccine diplomacy in order to undercut China’s dominant position in regional politics and economy. But these media reports are misleading and filled with bias, as they simply can’t see that Sino-Nepal relations are based on equality and respect.

At the same time, other countries are engaging in vaccine nationalism by hoarding Covid-19 vaccines, aggravating the vaccine battle. Vaccine nationalism is both morally reprehensible and ineffective in corona-control. It is unfair to deny developing countries equitable access to vaccines and leave their people vulnerable.

The virus knows no national boundaries and does not distinguish between race, skin color and wealth. The ideas of vaccine diplomacy and vaccine nationalism ignore China's respect for life. China has already given a large amount of materials to the world in order to fight the pandemic, and now it is also providing a large number of vaccines, which is an embodiment of humanitarianism, internationalism and respect for life. China’s actions are a resounding answer to some countries’ provocation and stigmatization.

An effective response to the global health crisis cannot be crafted without multilateralism. In the face of the novel coronavirus, countries need to coordinate responses in scientific research and government action, and promote cooperative “vaccine multilateralism”. The logic is to resist vaccine diplomacy, vaccine nationalism, and prevent the politicization of vaccine distribution. Moreover, China, a country that believes in multilateralism rather than national selfishness, knows only interdependence can ensure its own well-being. 

At present, fighting the pandemic is the most urgent task before the international community. We will continue to uphold the spirit of “one family in one boat”, strengthen exchanges and cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other countries, and continuously contribute China’s wisdom and strength to achieving final victory in the global fight against Covid-19. This will in turn help build a community with a shared future for mankind. China is willing to fight Covid-19 side by side with people from all walks of life in Nepal and to overcome difficulties together. 

The two authors are scholars associated with Sichuan Police College

Recent research in Nepal by Emory University and SAHAJ found that 66 percent of young women and girls are afraid of men in their families, especially fathers and husbands. While 45 percent felt afraid sometimes, 11 percent felt scared often.

I am a father of two daughters—one of them is two and the other seven. I know that my older daughter is a little afraid of me. “Did you finish your homework? Why don’t you practice your music? Please put your stuff away. Can you not do that please? Did you finish reading the book?”: These are questions that have to be asked. Once in a while, say about two or three times every year, timeout sessions have to be doled out. I worry about how I can be a kinder, better father.

I was 16 when I started working with children and other young people. I have been a tutor, volunteer, teacher, counselor, a children’s program lead, administrator, and a planner who has influenced, to a degree, young people four to 20 years old. Over three decades, I have had direct say in the activities of more than a thousand young people.

Yet it made the hairs on my back stand when I read in the SAHAJ study report that girls share, “A higher burden of labor, family conflict, and decreased financial security. The return of absent family members and alcohol abuse by adults were associated with several categories of fear and a reported decrease in feeling safe in the home.” It's unimaginable to me that our daughters do not feel safe at home.

The young people I worked with, some were very poor or abandoned, unable to afford quality education and care. Some came from families of multi-millionaires and had several servants assigned to their wellbeing, including security guards. Whether the families came from the high mountains or the Tarai plains, whether they suffered poverty or were rich, they faced the same question: how to best bring up their child?

Even then there were conflicts within families, among parents and grandparents, children and adults. In my family, father and mother tried to treat me and my sister as equals, yet there was a struggle with the extended family. There was no denying that Nepali traditional families continue to give preferential treatment to their sons. However, much has changed for a new generation of daughters. My friends remain immensely happy with one daughter or two, giving them the same love as they would a son. Very blessed with two wonderful daughters, I tell my friends sometimes, “We should start a club for those of us who have daughters only, there are so many of us!”

Bringing them up, I have seen families that are firm with their children while teaching them empathy and giving them care. Full freedom without consequences turned most children into a bother for the people who came in contact with them and for the families themselves. The most difficult situations came about when children were given full freedom and then meted out stern punishment when things became difficult.

My generation was afraid of fathers, teachers, police, authority in general and shameful of family members who were “different.” Most of us faced corporal punishments. A significant number of us, I believe, have stunted empathy, reject our larger families, stay away and remain uncommunicative, and have only made peace with ourselves and our dear ones after many years—or not at all.

The opposite is true of how people treat their offspring now, and so it was a concerning throwback to read of daughters who are scared of family (especially fathers), with 86 percent of them never sharing their fears with anyone. A VSO survey documents that 21 percent of respondents perceived an increase in gender-based violence in their community and less access to safety nets since the start of the Covid lockdown.

The ideal families that I have worked with deeply respected their young people and their opinions. Daughters in these homes are unafraid to share their ideas and opinions and elders take their ideas on board in everyday decision-making. Though rebellious, they stay within boundaries. They care about their grandparents, uncles and aunts; and the old as they face old age, disease, and death. They have great compassion for their parents and siblings and are willing to support everyone the best they can. They are happy to visit cousins and the extended family knowing that they belong.

But in this new world where parents want to be understanding of their children, where corporal punishment is not an option, it was easy to be draconian using psychological, verbal, and, later, financial means to create control. When there was lack of togetherness, it resulted in young people following a different philosophy and understanding of life: estrangement and disagreement were addressed ultimately with tolerance, acceptance, and a bringing together.

There is really no one way of parenting, educating, and bringing up young people. Governments, media, societies, neighbors and family members can point to how things “should be” and that in itself is flawed considering that each geography, culture, language, community, family, and individual is different. “I really do not want to be friends with my kids…. It is my job to make sure that my kids are taught what is right and what is wrong. It is my job is to teach my children how to become great human beings. I am okay with my kids thinking I am not their best friend. I am okay with my kids being upset that they’re disciplined.”

As a father, though, I would like to be approachable even though I would want my daughters to accept responsibility and be accountable. I would like them to feel that I am always there for them and do not end up alienating them. I will never judge them. I want them to be independent, able to make their own decisions and stand up to injustice from outside the family or from their father.

I accept that my daughters can be afraid of me and will consciously try to make sure that I am approachable and caring. For the many fathers of this world, it is always good to remember that one day our daughters will leave home and build their own lives. It is up to us to create relationships with our daughters that they will find comfort in, that they will want to come back to, and pass on to their own families. Insights of my daughters two and seven years of age, the children, their parents and grandparents, and efforts of SAHAJ, VSO, WOREC and others who work in this field help improve us as individuals, families, communities, and fathers. Let our daughters’ hearts be free of fear in this wonderful world and at home.

The author, associated with the Spiny Babbler Knowledge Center, is an author of several books and has worked in communications for over a quarter of a century

Each faction of the Nepal Communist Party has declared a ‘third people’s movement’ aimed at taming the other. Members of the civil society have made the same declaration. The assertion of the ruling NCP faction under KP Oli is clearly a gimmick to undercut the sanctity of the protests against his unconstitutional House dissolution. But what about the anti-government protestors? Do their protests herald a third people’s movement in Nepal?  

The second people’s movement in 2006 was a direct consequence of the 2001 royal massacre. The public considered King Gyanendra and his immediate family complicit in the murder of Birendra and his family. Even those who were ambivalent about the monarchy until that point suddenly developed a soft spot for the slain king—and antipathy for his younger brother. Moreover, King Birendra had accepted his constitutional status following the first people’s movement in 1990. Before that, he had agreed to a referendum on the Panchayat system. People remembered. Birendra and his family were also seen as more genial and liberal than Gyanendra (with his murky business dealings) or his son Paras (who, among his other villainous activities, had run over and killed a popular singer).

Forever carrying a cloud of suspicion over him, Gyanendra would have had a tough time even as a constitutional monarch. When he staged a coup and took over executive powers, besides the common folks, Gyanendra also ended up alienating the entire political class. He arrested Nepali intellectuals. Thus was a broad coalition against the unpopular monarch stitched together and the anti-monarchy revolution succeeded.  

Of course, Gyanendra’s unpopularity wasn’t the only factor behind the success of the second people’s movement. The decade-long Maoist conflict also played a part, as did India’s reluctance to come to the rescue of a monarch who was seen as acting against its interests. Yet all successful revolutions feature a common figure of hatred. In 2006, it was King Gyanendra in Nepal. In 2011, it was Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. All these revolutions also had a strong common agenda that united the opposition.  

Today, KP Oli presents a different case. Before the House dissolution, he was a popularly elected prime minister in the middle of his legitimate five-year term. And Oli still enjoys a level of public support, perhaps more than do Prachanda, Madhav Nepal or Sher Bahadur Deuba, his most likely replacements as prime minister. True, misguided moves like the arrest of Ram Kumari Jhakri for speaking against the country’s president will add to Oli’s unpopularity. As will the crackdown on some civil society activities before that. 

But despite all that, Oli is not—and can never be—an autocrat with absolute powers. Nor can he ever inspire the level of hatred seen against King Gyanendra in 2006. This is why the events of 2006 or 2011 are unlikely to be repeated in Nepal soon. Plus, Oli right now does not have strong external enemies who are determined to see him fail. 

Moreover, the various anti-government protestors are also divided on their agenda. Some want the parliament restored, others would settle for nothing less than a complete rewrite of the constitution. People find this motley clubbing of goals confusing. 

Yet protests often have their own momentum. For one, they can succeed because of the mounting mistakes of the rulers—and Oli is pushing it. But, again, the various shades of anti-government protestors do not have a common agenda. Most people meanwhile appear happy to wait and watch from the sidelines.