Submit your Article

In the first week of October, a Nepali Congress team led by former foreign minister Prakash Sharan Mahat visited New Delhi at the invitation of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Udaya Shumsher Rana and Ajaya Kumar Chaurasiya were the other two team members. 

For public consumption, the visit was said to be a part of an ongoing party-to-party exchange between the NC and the BJP. But according to sources, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba had dispatched the trio to explain to the Indian establishment his plan to contest elections for a second term as party president. 

The three leaders visiting India are close confidants of PM Deuba. The visiting team didn’t have anyone from the rival factions of the Nepali Congress. Deuba did not discuss with other leaders the purpose of the visit either.  

According to Chaurasiya, the talks with Indian leaders and officials focused on two broad areas: strengthening government-to-government ties, and increasing interactions/exchanges between the NC and the BJP. “We conveyed PM Deuba’s message to the Indian leaders that he wants to maintain good rapport with the Indian government and the BJP,” Chaurasiya told ApEx. “The Indian side also conveyed its message that the government led by Narendra Modi wants to build a good relationship with the government as well as PM Deuba, who is also the party president.” 

A senior Congress leader in frequent touch with the Indian establishment says NC leaders considered close to India have deserted the Deuba camp and this has added to his worries ahead of the party elections. “PM Deuba wants to secure India’s support for his candidacy, but this time India has remained mum and not supported any specific leader,” says the leader requesting anonymity. He says this time India is unlikely to throw its weight behind any candidate. It is also not clear whether the Indian bureaucracy and the BJP are on the same page on how to approach the NC’s convention and a possible change in leadership. 

Also read: How and when will the three-tier elections be held?

Bimalendra Nidhi, a long-time confidant of Deuba, has announced plans to contest the party presidency. Shekhar Koirala, who maintains good rapport with the Indian leadership, is also in the fray. This creates additional challenges for Deuba. 

NC leaders say neither internal party dynamics nor the external environment is in Deuba’s favor this time, and he is desperate to have New Delhi’s support. During their visit, the NC team met senior BJP leaders, Minister for External Affairs S Jaishankar, and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Aditya Nath. According to the Congress leader, the issue of NC general convention also figured during these meetings. 

In the third week of August, BJP foreign affairs department chief Vijay Chauthaiwale had visited Kathmandu at Mahat’s invitation. He met PM Deuba and other senior leaders. Ever since the formation of the Deuba government, a team of NC leaders has been relentlessly working to mend ties with New Delhi through engagements with the bureaucracy as well as members of the ruling BJP.    

Not only those close to Deuba, others such as Bimalendra Nidhi, Shashank Koirala, Shekhar Koirala, and Prakash Man Singh have also tossed their hats in the ring in the race for party presidency. 

This week Shashank Koirala visited Bombay and New Delhi. Koirala met some BJP leaders to seek their advice and support for his bid. “Though senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel has announced his candidacy for the presidency, it is likely to boil down to a Deuba vs Koirala [Shekhar or Shashank] fight,” says another Congress leader, also requesting anonymity.  

Arun Subedi, a political and foreign policy expert, says the traditional relationship between the two countries means the Indian factor is always influential inside the NC, especially during the general convention. Whatever NC leaders may say for public consumption, all leadership aspirants secretly seek India’s support, Subdei adds, PM Deuba being no exception. 

Also read: Nepal’s decennial census needs a rethink

Deuba is equally worried about India’s reluctance to roll out the red carpet for him in New Delhi. In the past, India used to invite the Nepali PM as soon as he took charge. But this time, India is yet to send a formal invite. The delay in the visit has been partially attributed to NC’s internal political mess.

This time, Deuba’s first foreign visit is to Scotland to take part in COP26, where he is  expected to meet his Indian counterpart Modi on the sidelines of the conference. Deuba is also likely to pay an official visit to India after returning from Glasgow. 

Though the meetings of bilateral mechanisms between the two countries are taking place regularly and some connectivity projects are making progress, Deuba is not confident that New Delhi is fully backing his government. 

In June this year, in a veiled reference to India, five former prime ministers including Deuba had cautioned against external influence in the country’s internal affairs. Party leaders say it was Deuba’s mistake to join forces with four prime ministers to issue the statement, which irked India. New Delhi is reportedly unhappy with Deuba over some issues. 

Analyst Subedi’s understanding is that an environment of trust is yet to be established between the Deuba-led government and India. “Bureaucratic-level engagements don’t produce sustainable relations. Deuba doesn’t have any foreign affairs advisors to take matters beyond the bureaucracy,” Subedi says. “The foreign ministers have been unable to mend and maintain ties with India. This failure to create an environment of trust is good neither for Nepal nor India.” 

In his recent book Political Changes in Nepal and Bhutan (Emerging Trends in Foreign Policy in Post 2008 Period), Nihar R Nayak, a research fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, observes: “Even after 70 years of diplomatic history, regime security has remained a key determinant of Nepal’s foreign policy. The new governments in Kathmandu give priority to win the goodwill of neighboring countries, especially India.” 

This year, Nepal ranks as the 132nd most unequal country in the world, with a Gini coefficient of 0.328. (The closer to 1, the higher the level of inequality.) It’s not a bad place to be. By this measure, income and wealth are more evenly distributed in Nepal than they are in, say, the United States (0.411), Bhutan (0.374), India (0.357), Pakistan (0.335)—or South Korea (0.354).

Yet the stark disparities between millions of those who have to toil abroad just to feed their families and Nepal’s richest few who have stashed hundreds of millions of unearned dollars in tax havens still rankle.

Perhaps this is one reason the superhit South Korean Netflix series ‘Squid Game’ is so relatable to a common Nepali, or the citizens of most countries around the world for that matter. Singer Hemant Rana’s poignant 2017 song ‘Saili’ captures the misery of Nepali migrant workers who are forced into a Devil’s bargain: to trade away the most productive years of their lives for an elusive promise of a comfortable life back in their own country when they ‘cross 40’.

They could easily identify with the Squid Game character of Ali Abdul, a struggling Pakistani worker—a husband and a new father—whose wages are cruelly held back by his South Korean employer.  

The series’ plot revolves around a series of children’s games that 456 participants compete in for a grand prize of around $33 million. (Spoiler alert: Don’t read further if you are thinking of watching it.) But there can be only one winner—the rest will have to die. The games’ organizers carefully select these players, who are all neck-deep in debt and so desperate they are ready to embrace a near-certain death for the long shot at the prize-money. The organizers, meanwhile, cater to a cabal of sadistic ultra-rich folks who pay a premium price to watch people die horrible deaths. Ali is among those desperate players.  

Also read: Diplomatic License | Indian ignorance on Nepal

In the abovementioned ‘Saili’ song from the film of the same name, the actor, who is about to leave the country to work abroad, promises his beloved that he will return one day and they will then spend a happy life together. The sad reality is that after years of gruelling work, many migrant workers come back with severe mental and physical traumas. Some don’t make it back at all: Around 8,000 Nepali nationals have died while working abroad over the past dozen years. In many ways, their situation is hopeless.

The same can be said of the character of Seong Gi-hun, the eventual winner of the Squid Game. He enters the series of dangerous games after he fails to put together enough money to treat his diabetic mother, whose leg is already beset by gangrene. On returning home triumphant, he finds his mother lying on the floor, dead. Nor can Seong Gi-hun, with all his money, go meet his daughter who is living with her mother and stepfather in the US. In this dog-eat-dog world of unfettered capitalism, the poor lose even when they win.

Most Nepalis have known the helplessness that accompanies the knowledge that a handful of powerful politicians and super-rich businessmen control their lives.

Governments come and go, as and when these plutocrats fancy. The cartels they control enjoy monopolies over vital sectors like health, education, and transport. Prices of daily commodities are forever on the rise and there is zero guarantee of the quality of products in the market. The concerns of these money-minded elites are completely divorced from those of ordinary folks. It often feels like they are playing a cruel game on the rest of us—a game they can’t lose and we can’t win.  

Dashain, often regarded as a festival of happiness, doesn’t bring about the same happy vibes for everyone.

In the economy, entertainment, and other financial areas, you may find a lot of optimism, but in politics, it’s the other way round. This is due to the political culture we have established over the years.

For a long time, even since the days of the Ranas, we have lacked political discipline. We have witnessed various political changes and a new bunch of leaders emerge. But nobody is bothered about the feelings of citizens. If they were, we would not be in a perpetual political crisis. If they were serious about bringing people some festive joy, nobody would have to worry about how to cope with and celebrate Dashain.

Let’s not take this as a matter of pessimism. This is something forced upon us. So, I don’t think Nepalis ever expect anything good to emerge in politics during Dashain. They know nothing will change, and no one will try to change the status quo. I don’t foresee any new political turning point this Dashain as well.  

Also read: Cautiously optimistic on corona

Rather than delivering joy and happiness, Dashain brings corruption, inflation, and social disturbance. This is the worst reality we are forced to live in. For me, Dashain increases the economic burden as there is no productivity. Moreover, we are in the middle of a pandemic and for sure, people will move in and out during Dashain, which will again increase Covid-19 infections. There is no positivity.

Dashain has almost begun, but has anyone seen anything positive in politics? I may sound harsh, but it is what it is. I don’t remember any Dashain that has brought political joy. It might have brought joy to some political cadres, but never to the public.

We all noticed recent activities in parliament. Do they look like they care about the people? Will they bring consensus and stability? I don’t believe they will. I must say, Dashain should have a relation to politics and it should bring more happiness but here in our country, it won’t.

I request everyone to enjoy the festival on their own; don’t expect anything productive on the political front.

Save for a few foreign policy greybeards, most Indian analysts have a limited understanding of Nepal. They follow developments here only in relation to China: the hungry dragon, apparently, is gobbling up India’s traditional backyard, a BRI project at a time. Entirely missing the nuances of Nepal-China ties, they nonetheless like to hold forth on the latter’s ‘debt trap’ diplomacy: Look at what the Chinese did in Tibet or what they are doing in Hambantota. That India, a fellow democracy and close neighbor, is Nepal’s only ever-lasting friend. Few of them seem aware that China’s debt diplomacy is something endlessly discussed in Nepal.

But it is also natural for the Indians, representatives of a rising global power, to be more interested in other big powers like the US, China, and Russia, or Pakistan, the constant pain in the neck. Why should they have to worry about comparably inconsequential Nepal? About a country whose rulers have traditionally taken to bashing their homeland to get to and stay in power? Passing knowledge should thus suffice.

Also read: Post-Aukus challenges for Nepal

Typically, only horrendous news from Nepal makes it to the headlines of Indian mass media: the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane, the 2001 royal massacre, and the 2015-16 border blockade, for example. Most recently, all the coverage of Nepal is centered on the Nepali political elite falling into China’s trap and compromising on vital Indian interests. In the news now is China’s supposed encroachment of Nepali territories in Humla district, never mind that Nepal and China have amicably settled most of their border back in the 1960s and that the area in question is not even a small fraction of Nepal’s disputed territories with India. In light of the recent India-China border tensions, the Indians have become knee-jerk Sinophobes.

The only way the situation will improve is if the establishment in New Delhi really starts practicing its ‘neighborhood first’ mantra. Although successive Indian governments have vowed to make immediate neighborhood their top priority, seldom is the commitment reflected on the ground. Just like the attention of the broader Indian public, the attention of the Indian foreign policy and political establishment is almost exclusively focused on big powers.

Of course, bilateral relations are a two-way process. Nepal is unsure about its foreign policy priorities, its embassy in New Delhi is toothless, and Nepali leaders are invariably currying personal favors in their dealings with New Delhi, jeopardizing national interest in the process. (Even our prospective police chiefs, it turns out, want to be endorsed by the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu). If we can’t have our own house in order, we shouldn’t crib about outsiders.

Yet that doesn’t obviate the brutal fact that only India, with its economic and military heft, can take leadership of the region. If it is keen on improving its image in smaller South Asian countries, it could do much more: reduce tariffs on their products, allow them easy transit routes, and refrain from meddling in their domestic affairs. It is also incumbent upon the Indian political leadership to continuously remind their brethren of the importance of such countries’ support to realize India’s global aspirations.