Submit your Article

If all goes well, PM KP Oli will visit China in the third week of June. As is the tradition, he will seek China’s help in building infrastructure projects and repeat the pledge that Nepal will not allow its territory to be used against China. The Chinese side will thank him for Nepal’s unwav­ering support to the ‘one-Chi­na’ policy and promise us a new building or highway. Upon his return to Kathmandu, PM Oli will proudly announce that Nepal will host President Xi Jinping this year and most of us will go gaga over the visit (which, in all likelihood, won’t take place). Newspapers will be filled with articles by pro-China Nepali nationalist intellectuals telling us how lucky we are to have President Xi visit us and they will advise us on proper etiquettes to welcome him. For a few days, our foreign policy/China experts will be busy analyzing various “ground breaking” bilateral agree­ments that neither side will be keen on implementing any time soon. And PM Oli’s visit will soon be forgotten.

But how about making the visit a memorable one? And it can be done if PM Oli visits China with a new mindset and without the customary begging bowl.

Way to make it memorable

Truth be told, PM Oli’s visit doesn’t mean much for the Chi­nese government. Although we cannot make the Chinese take us seriously all of a sudden, we can make at least a segment of the Chinese population talk about us—not as another third-world beggar but as a friendly neighbor with historical ties that despite being poor today was at one point thought of highly, even by the mighty Chinese emperors.

As I have written elsewhere, there’s no better venue to high­light this than the Yonghegong temple in Beijing. The main attraction of the 18th-century temple is a giant statue of Mai­treya Buddha carved in Nepal. Similarly, six Nepali artists were involved in its renovation from 1744 to 1747. Since it is an import­ant monastery, a visit or a press conference there with his Chi­nese counterpart would highlight Nepal’s importance in Chinese culture to the Chinese public.

Rather than touring facto­ries or lecturing at universities/think-tanks or meeting with the self-declared know-nothing Nepal specialists of no importance what­soever, PM Oli needs to meet the family members of the Chinese workers who lost their lives while working on various construction projects in Nepal. It’s about time we appreciated and honored their sacrifice. It’s long overdue.

Prove me wrong, please

Most importantly though, we need to accept and learn to deal with the inherent contradiction in China’s Nepal policy. It expects us to view it independent of our relations—and problems—with India. But then it views us through the Indian lens. Its Nepal policy is intricately intertwined with its India policy, as was evident from its passivity during the var­ious political changes, and the ‘help’ rendered during the Indian economic blockade of 2015: 2.3 million liters of gasoline, 5,000 pieces of overpriced induction cookers deducted from the aid for that year and “moral support”. As of today, it wants to make its presence felt in Nepal, but not to the extent to make India uncom­fortable. It is not talking about tri­lateral cooperation for no reason. It wants to assure India that it is ready to work with it on/in Nepal. Given our weak economy and defense, it knows it can easily use our territory against India, if and when it has to, and so it has no reason to take us seriously.

Therefore, PM Oli, it’s quite unwise to expect China to build infrastructure projects that will miraculously “end” our depen­dence on India. To avoid losing face (diu lian), an important concept in China, don’t make a request for projects that have far-reaching geopolitical and eco­nomic consequences, or those we can build on our own, just to establish your nationalist cre­dentials. Because no help will be forthcoming, and it will make us appear stupid before the Chinese. Certainly, we can sign agreements linking us with the Pacific Ocean, Central Asia, East Asia and Russia and even with the moon and the space via China, but it’s not going to change anything in the present or in the future.

Just show your hosts the proud, wise and humane side of Nepalis to make this visit a success. But, given our bureaucratic submis­siveness, diplomatic appeasement and intellectual poverty, I remain a pessimist. PM Oli, please prove me wrong.

In a video address to the public on the occasion of the completion of the first 100 days of this govern­ment, Prime Minister KP Oli boldly proclaimed: “This government does not work for populism. We become popular by doing good work.” The paradox however is exempli­fied in the accomplishments, or lack thereof, of this administration. Deep down we all know this government is largely founded on populism and it’s still unclear how Oli and his gov­ernment will change the dynamic.

To be clear, 100 days are not suffi­cient to really assess the intentions and scope of a government. But a preliminary ground assessment shows plenty of hot air with little or no substantial effort in changing the working style of the Nepali state. Still the public are constantly being fed words of hope and imminent prosperity, which may ring hollow in the face of hopelessness and frus­tration of the realities of everyday life. It is as though drumming the idea of prosperity into the minds of the people would be enough to magically lift the curtain and make ‘prosperity’ materialize.

Missing pieces

In his address, PM Oli outlined 16 major achievements of the gov­ernment in its first 100 days. It is unheard of in any country, much less in one of the poorest and most cor­rupt, that 16 major feats are achieved in 100 days. But as with most things, KP Oli says these achievements too are a product of his imagination and dreams. The truth is, it is unclear where the administration is headed after its first 100 days.

The government received over­whelming public support to stamp out the transport cartel. Everyone in the government proudly talks about how Nepal’s transport syn­dicate has come to an end. How­ever, we are yet to see how this gov­ernment intends to manage public transport, improve its quality and ensure passenger safety. The only tangible change we see is that public transport operators are now forced to register their vehicles under the Company Act. This does not nec­essarily bring about changes in ser­vices. If concrete measures are not taken to actually improve services, there is no meaning in ‘ending the transport syndicate’.

Similarly, PM Oli has repeatedly made commitments to eradicate corruption. He says, “I do not indulge in corruption and do not let others indulge in it either. The days of corrupt people are over.” But again the question is: what steps has he taken to tackle corruption?

The government’s anti-corruption body remains headless. Oli seems to have no interest in appointing a head for the Commission for the Investigation of the Abuse of Authority (CIAA), possibly because it is a position rife with political interests. The way the system cur­rently functions, it is near impos­sible to appoint a credible figure to head the body without compro­mising on political interests, which this government is not ready to do. Instead, the focus has shifted to specific cases of gold smuggling and immigration fraud. Oli under­stands that investigating isolated incidences of smuggling or fraud could make him more popular.

Company he keeps

Early signs indicate that Oli is uninterested in strengthening the system, which has progres­sively decayed over the past two decades. He has not risen above party interests to build a system that works in the nation’s interest. The prime minister is the sum of the company he keeps, and being sur­rounded by only party cadres with mediocre professional grit means lit­tle is likely to change in the govern­ment’s working style. Party meet­ings continue to be held in Balu­watar and there is a reluctance to engage professionals in supporting the administration, opting instead for loyal party cadres who do not question or analyze critically. This is a practice that goes back to the beginning of the democratic era and has been a core cause behind the disarray in the governing system.

No doubt, Oli seems desperate to leave a positive mark during his premiership, but his working style is likely to prove counter-productive in realizing his dream. To deliver results, Oli must first and foremost rise above party interests and estab­lish himself as a national leader working in the national interest.

With the arrest and charging of Harvey Weinstein, for­mer film producer, comes a bittersweet victory for Hollywood and women in general. Him and the likes of Bill Crosby are high pro­file abusers, using their positions to exploit women. They are not the first of course. Abusers range from DJs, actors, and singers to an Olympic athletes’ doctor, members of the UN peacekeeping force, and development workers. But to my mind—and I expect criti­cal and strong feedback here—actors, directors and the like are idolized for their looks, fame, money, ability to progress ones career etc, by the women they subsequently abuse. These women may not be nearly as vulnerable as those being abused by doctors, peacekeepers and others in a position of trust. Now before you start punching the newspaper, let me say I in NO WAY condone any act of violence, physical, mental, or sexual against any female (or male). I also fall into the #metoo category, twice over (discounting the ‘small stuff’). What I am saying is that those who are physically in positions of trust, such as doctors and peace­keepers, are generally in close con­tact with people whose very lives are precariously in their hands. There is something particularly abhorrent about that kind of advantage taking.

As #metoo, correctly, intensifies is there a line to be drawn any­where? When does sexual innuendo and light teasing become sexual assault? There is not a single female on this earth who has not suffered some kind of teasing; and probably frequently. But what is seen to one woman as easy-going banter from a col­league is viewed as sexual abuse by another. I wrote in an earlier column about being verbally abused by a young guy on a scooter. To me it was just annoying and silly. Yet to the young Nepali girl who grabbed me by the arm when he started verbally abusing her, this was sexual abuse, and terrifying.

I’m reading today that Morgan Freeman has also been accused under #metoo. His ‘sexual abuse’ of colleagues was to his mind jokes and compliments. Being that he is 80 years old, he will have grown up in a society where joking and com­plimenting women with the likes of “your legs look fabulous in that short skirt” (my words), was per­fectly acceptable. But as time has gone on, this kind of comment is not only uncomfortable, but labelled “sexual abuse”. Men must now take care not to offend women by saying or doing anything that can be construed as abuse. Again I ask, is there a line to be drawn and where do we draw it?

Something those in Asia will find extremely strange and hard to understand is that in the West you cannot even talk to a young child that you do not know lest you be accused of child molestation. Ear­lier this week there was a child of about four crying on the stairs of the venue I was in. Naturally I stopped to ask why he was crying and where was his mother. If his father had not turned up at that point I would have lifted the child off the stair and tried to find someone who knew him. This kind of thing cannot now be done in the West without risk­ing being accused of kidnapping or abuse. Where do we draw the line?

Which brings me to another ques­tion—when is art, art, and when is art, pornography? This is certainly an age-old question but in the days of social media when is it right to post so-called art pictures which are, to the majority, merely porn? If someone, who is not a photogra­pher by profession, takes semi-nude pictures of (consenting) strangers on his phone and posts on social media under the heading “art”, is it art or is it pornography? Are we so numb and jaded by erotic imagery that we don’t even care? Where do we draw the line?

Horror

SUNKESARI

CAST: Reecha Sharma, Rabindra Jha, Sunny Dhakal, Lauren Lofberg

DIRECTION: Arpan Thapa

1 Star

Director Arpan Thapa and lead­ing lady Reecha Sharma would want us to believe that with their latest project ‘Sunkesari’ they have a lot at stake and that they have defied filmmakers’ reluctance to tap into the most unpopular genre in Nepali cinema: horror. But to think of ‘Sunkesari’ as a path-breaking genre piece would be a grand error of judgment. It is so dull and ineffective that it rightly earns a place in the can alongside other trashy wannabe horror films like ‘Awaran’, ‘Ek Din Ek Raat’, ‘Zhi­grana’ and ‘Vigilante 3D’. As in the aforementioned movies, ‘Sunkesari’ deploys the same textbook tech­niques of unmotivated jump scares, swinging doors, sliding blankets and heavy background scores to scare audience. But there is no convincing story to hold them all together.

The entire film is set in Austra­lia. When we first meet the titu­lar character Sunkesari (Reecha Sharma), she’s curled up in her bed, going through a bad breakup. She appears depressed, maybe slightly suicidal and utterly unsocial. Then her overtly concerned friend walks in, gives her a few minutes of pep talk and finally makes a suggestion to help her move on. And what does she suggest? That Sunkesari spends some time away at a large tourist mansion which hasn’t offi­cially opened up and where prob­ably she’d be the only guest. Good friends (unless they are sadists) would perhaps not give you such ludicrous ideas, especially not if you are emotionally unstable.

But this film stays outside the sphere of common sense and main­tains a level of brain-deadness that is hard to cover up. So Sunkesari, who actually needs to be on a 24-hour suicide watch, goes to the man­sion. There she’s welcomed by a butler, Yadav (Rabindra Jha). The only working staff of the mansion, Yadav, we’re told, is an illegal Nepali immigrant. Why anyone would trust an illegal immigrant with no work experience to run a multi-million property is never mentioned.

After that, as is typical of the haunted-house story template, Sunkesari and Yadav are tormented by creepy noises, doors that shut on their own, loud banging at night and ghostly figures. Later, a young cou­ple on honeymoon (Sunny Dhakal and Lauren Lofberg) checks in. Their arrival only aggravates the situation. Also from then on the film turns into a ham-fisted display of bad acting and direction.

There is no love and regard for the genre in Arpan Thapa’s direction. His carelessness is evident in many places but mostly while trying to balance dread and anticipation, which are the most important ingre­dients of any horror film. Devoting an entire parallel comic track on Rabindra Jha shows how desperate Thapa is to make it mainstream. But his decision misfires.

Good production design and camera work can never conceal a bad screenplay. Thapa’s writing is unfocused and sketchy. It’s strange that the investors backed such a poor story. One of those backers is Reecha Sharma herself. I last saw Sharma hamming it up in ‘Kohalpur Express’, in what I consider the worst performance of her career. She’s more bearable in ‘Sunkesari’ but her character’s shallowness and passivity limits her to dead-eyed act­ing with much sulking and staring. The rest of the cast is forgettable.

‘Sunkesari’ is an amateur horror film lacking finesse, both in terms of storytelling and technical craft. The film is a lesson for other would-be horror filmmakers to look beyond outdated model of cheap thrills and jump scares.