Submit your Article

That day you used a piece of red cloth

To blindfold me and the sky

And asked me what do you see

I said I saw happiness

This really made me feel good

It made me forget I have no place to live

You asked me where I want to go

I said I want to follow you

I didn’t see you or the road

You also held my hands

You asked me what I want

I said I want you to decide

(Cui Jian, A piece of red cloth (‘yi kuai er hong bu’). Translation from Mandarin, mine) Some reckon it is too early to judge the Oli-led govern­ment. But, then, what exactly has he accomplished in more than four months in office, except making promises?

The promised and proposed trains, airports and major infra­structure projects take time and nobody is saying we want all those right now. But our pundits, politi­cians and journalists have meshed the infrastructure projects with nationalism and we are being told to silently bear the unbearable, tolerate the intolerable and not question the government if we want the train and other good­ies. But big projects with neither definite timelines nor funding or planning nor anything, do not constitute nationalism or devel­opment. Nationalism is not only about infrastructures; there’s much more to it.

If the prime minister were a nationalist, as his supporters make him out to be, he would have made sure that all schools in Nepal had computers and internet access before doling out expensive MacBook Air to his ministers to make the government digital and efficient. If he really wanted our well-being, he would have tried to upgrade the ser­vices, equipment and quality of government hospitals so that we, the poor majority, would get the same treatment in Nepal which the politicians, himself included, get abroad.

If he was concerned about us, he would have made sure that the Dairy Development Corpora­tion, a government entity, would send at least cleaner dairy prod­ucts to the market so that we can consume them without fearing coliform and E.coli infestation. If he really thought about our safety, he would make sure at least our roads have traffic sig­nals. If he wanted to make our lives easy, he would have made government offices efficient and corruption-free. If he cared about us, then the corrupt, past and present, would be behind the bars. Now ask yourself: what has the government done so far?

Taxes are raised but we have no idea where and how our tax money is spent because we still depend on foreign aid for almost everything. Our cash-strapped government loses almost Rs 350 million a day in customs revenue to leakages but it is doing nothing to control it, if not stop it altogether.

A doctor is waging a war against the medical mafia that wants to make money by providing medi­ocre education to students for tui­tion fees that’s beyond the capac­ity of the majority. A television program is allegedly shut down because the host dared to ask a minister uncomfortable ques­tions. But there’s not a word from the government on what exactly happened. Moreover, the places where Mr Oli himself protested and vandalized for the people’s rights are now restricted areas. Why doesn’t he do good things that will make people not want to protest at all? Instead he has asked his party cadres to strongly counter the voices that are ques­tioning him and his way of (not) doing things.

Why hasn’t the government been able to guarantee that the law of the land applies equally to all, rich and poor, weak and strong, politicians and common­ers? Nepotism and favoritism are still rife and you need to be either connected to someone powerful or be rich enough to bribe big time to get government and dip­lomatic positions.

The Oli government has made us forget that more than foreign evils, it is our domestic demons that need to be exorcised first. Stalin-worshipping fake commu­nists have made us forget all our present necessities and priorities by blindfolding us with national­ism and utopian dreams.

As Cui Jian, the ‘Father of Chinese Rock’ alludes to in his famous song, the government decides, we follow.

Welcome to democratic Nepal ruled by a nationalist government!

I had not expected the Oli government to start facing public criticism so soon, a mere five months into its likely five-year term. When the communist alliance secured an absolute majority, a lot of people felt this was an opportunity for the government to bolster peace, prosperity and stability. But things are taking a negative turn too soon. The Oli government’s popularity is gradually beginning to erode due to a combination of its actions and inactions. It is becoming glaringly apparent that turning rhetoric into reality will take much more than what the government currently has to offer.

But considering the high hopes many people had, lack of rapid progress on key day-to-day struggles is giving rise to a grow­ing sense of anger and despair.

The major trend that we see is that of misplaced priority. There seems to be little to no effort at relieving everyday stressors for people or even on larger projects that would remove those stressors. The govern­ment instead seems bent on making things difficult for many people. It is obvious that it is more focused on centralized control than on devolved growth.

For one, this government is not serious about the constitution. The majority of the actors involved in drafting the constitution are now a part of this government and yet it lacks the passion and commitment to uphold constitutional values.

It behaves as if it is above the constitu­tion. If the political actors and the gov­ernment do not own up the constitution, and abide by it, fertile ground for a fresh conflict will be created.

Instead of building a system of gover­nance based on laws, government minis­ters are making serious decisions without proper legal basis. The announcement of the end of transport syndicate, Home Ministry’s direction to regulate NGOs/INGOs, weak or dysfunctional consti­tutional bodies like CIAA are but a few examples of how ministers’ whims inform government decisions. As a result, federal, provincial as well as local level govern­ments are becoming weaker.

Perhaps the government is not clear about how it wants to steer national level policies on health, education, diplomacy, human rights and more. It also doesn’t seem to be taking into account possi­ble backlash on far-reaching decisions. In fact there seems to be no process for consultation with relevant stakeholders before decisions are made. For instance, the new integrity policy and medical education bill suggest that the govern­ment is unaware of the impact of pushing agendas without broader consultation and ownership.

Most shockingly, there is no eagerness to learn from practices and policies that have and haven’t worked in the past. Instead of enhancing knowledge and harnessing best practices, the government seems to believe that having attained two-thirds major­ity, there is no further scope for growth. As such, decisions are not informed and evidence-based, but rather made at personal whims.

These factors are creating a churning at the grassroots that will slowly chip away public confidence in this admin­istration. The government will realize this sooner or later, but by then the damage may be done. The opportunity to deliver on some key indicators for growth is not yet lost; after all it has only been five months since this government came to power.

But frustration will mount if there con­tinues to be opacity about government actions and if power is not devolved as per the spirit of the constitution. And we all know what mounting frustration among a young and largely unemployed citi­zenry means.

Crime Thriller

SICARIO 2: DAY OF THE SOLDADO

CAST: Benicio del Toro, Josh Brolin, Isabella Moner, Jeffrey Donovan

DIRECTION: Stefano Sollima

2018 is shaping up to be the year of sequels. First, it was ‘Dead­pool 2’ in May, followed by ‘The Incredibles 2’ in June. Gener­ally, sequels have a bad repute of unnecessarily trying to cash in on the popularity of their predecessors and getting away by doing pretty much the same thing all over again. But in the case of ‘Deadpool 2’ and ‘The Incredibles 2’ this didn’t apply. These follow-ups were no cheap knock-offs, and shoulder to shoul­der with their respective originals. And now ‘Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado’ gives us yet another reason to believe that a sequel can stand on its own. This second chapter retains the brooding demeanor of 2015’s “war on drugs” thriller ‘Sicario’ even though some key players from the original are missing. One nota­ble absence is director Denis Ville­neuve, who is known for his ability to elicit tension through his moody and minimalist direction.

‘Sicario 2’ has been directed by Italian filmmaker Stefano Sollima, who’s mostly known for his Italian crime drama ‘Gomorrah’ where Sollima’s anything but minimalist and draws towards excessive display of blood, gore and violence. The screenplay by Taylor Sheridan is more plot-driven this time and gives Sollima the opportunity to showcase his visual craft without departing from the original film’s muted tone.

‘Sicario 2’ opens with a series of terrorist suicide bombings in the US, which compel its government to seek the expertise of special CIA agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) who looks harmless in his cargo shorts and sandals but has questionable methods when it comes to infiltrat­ing his enemies. The government believes Mexican drug cartels are allowing Islamic terrorists to cross the border into US.

Graver’s given full authority to take care of the problem and play dirty if need be. He comes up with the idea of kidnapping a Mexi­can drug lord’s daughter (Isabella Moner) and make it look like the handiwork of a rival cartel leader, which would ultimately lead to a war between the cartels and favor the US government. To carry out the kid­napping, Graver recruits one of his most trusted and mysterious opera­tives, Alejandro (Benicio del Toro). But when their mission suffers a major setback—the US government finds itself at a risk of exposure for its unethical mission—Alejandro’s loyalty to his boss Graver is tested.

As the plot suggests, ‘Sicario 2’ develops more in the vein of action-adventure thrillers like the ‘Jason Bourne’ or ‘Mission Impos­sible’ series. It’s a drastic narrative change from the first ‘Sicario’ that was more a slow-burn mystery. Sol­lima handles the transition well. He’s able to orchestrate his action with a sense of unpredictability that keeps us on the edge of our seats throughout. The film is exquisitely shot by cinematographer Dariusz Wolski and hauntingly scored by Hildur Gudnadottir.

Del Toro and Brolin are two heavy­weight actors ably lifting the film on their capable shoulders. Del Toro has a hypnotic presence as Ale­jandro. The only backstory we get about Alejandro is that he used to work for the Mexican cartels before they killed his family. Graver has since been using Alejandro’s wrath for Mexican cartels to fuel his own agenda. Graver is really as a chame­leon: Mr. Nice Guy on the outside but underneath a person who can to any extreme to get what he wants.

Amid these seasoned performers is teenager Isabella Moner. Moner is feisty when we first meet her, beating up her classmate for cat calling her. As she slowly bonds with her kidnapper, Alejandro, she peels off her hardened edges and sees a father figure. Alejandro on the other hand sees his dead daughter in her.

‘Sicario 2’ benefits from the stellar acting and pulsating tension of the narrative. It may not be as cerebral and ambiguous as the first film. It does, however, intrigue and packs in plenty of surprises to make it a worthy sequel. Even when the film’s political ambitions are a bit muddled and stretched, it never fails as an action thriller.

Who should watch it?

‘Sicario 2’ is rated ‘A’ for violence and some may find it disturbing. But the film will be an ideal outing for viewers who want a taut thriller with plenty of violence.

 When the then CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist) center draft­ed the constitution in 2015, with the help of Nepali Congress, the constitution’s preamble clearly mentioned that from now on all kinds of discriminations based on class, caste, region, language and gender would end and that inclu­sive proportional representation would henceforth be the state’s guiding principle. The same con­stitution guarantees that dalits and women would be enlisted in state organs on inclusive proportional basis. Likewise, the presence of one-third women in parliament has been made compulsory. Moreover, there is a law whereby a party cannot be registered with the Election Com­mission unless women comprise at least a third of its central committee. Nepal now has a Nepal Commu­nist Party-led government, whose guiding principle is inclusive and accommodative democracy. It can even be argued that the communist leaders were chiefly responsible for including the provisions of inclusion and proportional representation in the new charter. But has the NCP adhered to its own principles?

Recently the NCP constituted its central committee, standing com­mittee and central secretariat. In the nine-member central secre­tariat, the party’s high command, there is not a single woman or dal­it. Of the nine men, seven (or 75 percent) are Brahmins, but not a single Chhetri or Madhesi has been accommodated. What could be a bigger contradiction than the fact that not a single laborer or poor farmer is represented in the central secretariat of the supposed party of the proletariat?

Lack of inclusion is even more glaring in the 45-member NCP stand­ing committee. The party’s organ responsible for all the vital deci­sion-making has just two (or four percent) women. There is a single dalit (two percent) and no Muslim. On the other hand, 96 percent of its members are male, and Brahmins take 60 percent of all seats.

The 441-member NCP cen­tral committee is bigger than the 376-member central committee of the Chinese Communist Party. But even this vast body is exclusionary. The NCP central committee has just 77 (17 percent) women. Missing the 33 percent compulsory threshold, the Election Commission should not have registered it. (But it has.)

There are just 5 percent dalits in the NCP central committee, or three times less than the required amount. On the other hand, there are 146 (33 percent) Brahmins, which is nearly three times their national popula­tion. There are eight percent Madhe­sis, two percent Muslims, 15 percent Chhetri/Thakuri and 26 percent jan­jatis. Thus all their shares have been eaten up by male Brahmins. There is also only token representation of laborers and poor farmers. The NCP central committee, it seems, has been constituted to establish the superiority of a single gender, a single caste and a single elite group.

This contradiction is seen not only in the NCP but also in different levels of governments it runs. Of the 24 federal level ministers, there are only four (17 percent) women. More­over, of the 21 ‘full ministers’ only two (9.5 percent) are women.

Twelve percent of Nepal’s population is comprised of Brah­mins while the dalit population is 13 percent. But while there is a single dalit in the cabinet of ministers, there are nine Brahmins. Likewise, of the six chief ministers of federal provinces chosen by the NCP, there is not a single woman or dalit.

At the level of mayors and head of rural municipalities, there are just 18 (four percent) women. But at the level of deputy mayors and deputy heads, there are 700 (or 93 percent) women. This happened because just like other parties the communist party too decided not to field women in the race for heads of these electoral bodies.

Is it the case that the NCP simply does not have enough women and dalits it can elect to executive posts? That is not so because the party has a large number of capable women and dalit leaders. Thus it is safe to say that they were excluded not because of their lack of ability but because they were not the favorites of powerful leaders.

When the political parties knew the inclusionary provisions would be impossible to implement, why keep them at all? Or is it the case that the constitution and the laws are not meant to be implemented but just to act as window dressing that we can showcase before the world? This big gulf between the laws and their actual implementation hint of a lack of responsibility and morality in Nepali politics.

The author is a veteran journalist and a left-leaning intellectual