In recent months, top leaders of the ruling parties, including Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, have been speaking about the possible danger to the current political dispensation. Although they assert no one can go back on republicanism, they also claim that some forces are trying to sabotage the current federal democratic republican system. There are also many who argue that ruling party leaders are making such statements to cover their failure to deliver, which has led to growing public frustration.

For the first time after becoming prime minister in February last year, Prime Minister Oli on August 20 summoned an all-party meeting and requested political parties ‘to defend and strengthen’ the federal democratic republican system. In the meeting, Oli claimed that some forces are trying to jeopardize the constitution—clearly hinting at the growing activities of former King Gyanendra Shah.

According to multiple sources, Shah has increased his activities in what could be a last-ditch effort to revive the monarchy. The government has received information that Shah has intensified his lobbying—both domestic and foreign—in order to launch a movement against the current political system. If his activities will lead to something tangible remains to be seen, but they have certainly given rise to many speculations.

Although the monarchy’s revival seems unlikely in the near future, as major parties strongly profess their commitment to the constitution, they also fear that Shah and his acolytes could exploit people’s frustration. 

Ruling party leaders concede that the government’s failure to deliver has led to a rise in public discontent and that regressive forces think of it as an opportune moment to rally people against the current order. They are of the view that although Shah has been trying to roll the clock back for long, the current situation is different as he has intensified his efforts in recent months.

Many campaigns

Besides Shah’s domestic and international lobbying to restore the monarchy and Nepal’s status as a Hindu state, a number of other campaigns that go against constitutional provisions are underway, although it is not clear if or how they are connected to Shah.

There is a vocal and sizeable section in the Nepali Congress (NC), the main opposition, in favor of a Hindu state. In a NC Mahasamiti meeting held a few months ago, around 700 out of 1,500 members had expressed their support for a Hindu state. NC General Secretary Shashank Koirala, Shekhar Koirala and even Ram Chandra Poudel, arguably the most powerful Congress leader after party president Sher Bahadur Deuba, are positive on their demand. It should be noted that this section of the Congress champions the restoration of only the Hindu state, not the monarchy— although the historical connection between the two is strong. NC leaders say that the Hindu state is going to be a prominent issue at the party’s upcoming general convention. Then there is the Rastriya Prajantra Party (RPP) led by Kamal Thapa, whose official position is the revival of the Hindu state and monarchy. Thapa frequently meets Shah, but his party believes that the former king should not be associated with, and dragged into the activities of, any single political outfit. Says Mohan Shrestha, RPP Spokesperson, “People are gradually considering an alternative to the republican system. And neighboring countries might also have thought there is a need for one credible and long-term Nepali institution they can rely on to protect their interests in Nepal.”

But even Shrestha reckons that reviving the monarchy or the Hindu state would be difficult without the support of big parties. Along with Shah’s increased activities, the RPP has also intensified its campaign to garner people’s support for restoring the monarchy. A referendum to decide the fate of the monarchy has long been among its chief demands. Finally, there are a number of less-organized groups that are launching separate campaigns for the revival of the Hindu state and/or the monarchy.

According to sources, former King Gyanendra Shah complains with national and international politicians about the failure of the Nepali political parties to honor the informal agreements reached right before he relinquished absolute powers following the second ‘people’s movement’ of 2006. From 2009 to 2015, in his democracy day message, he used to say that in order to ensure the country’s stability and prosperity, all agreements reached between him and the political parties should be implemented. Shah, however, has not clearly said what those agreements were. Those close to the former king claim that major parties had pledged to keep some form of monarchy alive, but they did not abide by it. Leaders of the major parties deny there was such an agreement.

Tainted figures

Those who demand only the revival of the Hindu state (and not the monarchy) believe that due to the tainted image of King Gyanendra and his son Paras Shah, common people will not accept them as their king. (Many Nepalis suspect the two had a hand in the 2001 royal massacre, and Paras has a long history of waywardness.) “Gyanendra is a major cause of the monarchy’s abolition. Had there been another figure, the institution would probably have survived. Gyanendra and his son Paras are still the main stumbling blocks to the monarchy’s revival,” says a top politician of a pro-monarchy party who has closely worked with the former king. “The then Indian foreign minister Natwar Singh and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had also given their nod to ‘a baby king’, but it did not materialize due to Gyanendra’s opposition,” he adds. Even the elder statesman and leader of the 2006 ‘people’s uprising’ Girija Prasad Koirala had repeatedly floated the proposal of ‘a baby king’.

King Gyanendra is aware of his and Paras’s tarnished image. That is why he has now floated the idea of reviving the concept of ‘a baby king’. According to the people in touch with him, the former king is willing to accept Hridayendra Shah, his grandson, as the new king. He is well aware that people will not accept Paras as their king.

There have been some media reports in the past couple of months that ruling and opposition party leaders are meeting Gyanendra, although such meetings have not been independently verified. There were reports that Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense Ishwar Pokhrel, and another Nepal Communist Party (NCP) leader Bam Dev Gautam met Gyanendra. NC General Secretary Shashank Koirala was also reported to have met the former king.

In April this year, Gyanendra went to Dhanusha, Sarlahi, Saptari, Udayapur, Panchthar and Ilam districts and visited several temples there. During the visits, he also met local politicians and civil society leaders. On his 73th birthday on July 1 this year, the former king published a book of articles and interviews, which was noted for its exorbitant price. The book has one article by Gyanendra himself, in which he has defended his direct rule. He has also stated that the country is in a state of flux without explaining the term.

External lobbying

Mainly after the promulgation of the new constitution in September 2015, Gyanendra has intensified his domestic and international visits. His stay in Bangkok in August lasted a considerable while. Before heading there, he had held consultations with people from various walks of life.

“In the past three years, former King Gyanendra has had an accelerated series of ‘exploratory’ talks separately and jointly with various levels of political representatives from the two neighbors who have at regular intervals given some frugal briefing to the Americans too,” wrote senior journalist P. Kharel in his Republica column in April. (Kharel often meets Gyanendra.) In January last year, Gyanendra met Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, at the latter’s residence in Lucknow. The yogi has openly supported the revival of the Hindu state and monarchy in Nepal. The same year, Gyanendra also visited China, but details of his meetings there are sparse. According to sources, Gyanendra is in regular touch with the embassies of the US, India, China and Japan in Kathmandu.

“Change is coming, whether you like it or not.” Wise words from a 16-year-old lost among the clam­or of panicking adults who can’t see beyond their beliefs and bank accounts. Greta Thunberg has blown the conch shell, meta­phorically. In Hindu mythology, the conch shell was blown at the beginning of a battle of good vs evil. In the Mahabharata, a long and destructive battle almost destroyed both sides, but the les­son remains—no matter what the cost, the battle had to be fought to the bitter end for ethical and moral reasons. Once you have entered the fray, there was no turning back.

The war of the Mahabhara­ta was only 18 days long. But what intense eighteen days! The epic is rich with extraordinary characters, plots and events. The Mahabharata is the longest epic poem known to humani­ty. According to Wikipedia: “At about 1.8 million words in total, the Mahabharata is roughly ten times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combined.”

And in much the same way, we can see the unfolding furies and passions of people separat­ing into two battle lines as Thun­berg blows the conch shell over what may be the biggest battle of humanity—the fight over the sur­vival of the planet itself. Tied to this battle is humanity’s survival, and also the survival of all living forms on earth.

For those who believe that their “way of life” is at risk, and who continue to believe the leftists are using children to make up alarm­ist stories to attack their lifestyles, the path forward is clear—more fossil fuel extraction, more auto­mobiles on the roads, endless deforestation for palm oil, soy and beef, clearcutting of all of South America to feed the geometrically multiplying human population. In this scenario, poverty can only be ended when every single human eats a hamburger a day, discards 4.6 pounds of disposable plastic each day, and drinks only bot­tled water or soda out of plastic bottles.

Agriculture will be increasingly “human free,” and will be done on a war footing with computers, drones and planes spraying thou­sands of hectares of land with lethal pesticides that kill every pest (and every weed, wildflower, bird, bee, earthworm, and beetle in the vicinity.) This is the vision of progress and affluence pushed by America, which coinciden­tally also happens to have the biggest fossil fuel companies, car companies and fertilizer and pes­ticide companies listed on their stock exchanges, enriching their stockholders with this apocalyptic vision of progress.

When Thunberg took a sailboat from Sweden to New York, she was entering the lion’s den—the city where all the commodities erasing the planet’s lifeforms are traded. Billions of dollars change hands in Wall Street and around New York everyday, as big finance companies trade in palm oil, soy, beef, and timber. The lifestyles of those trading the future secu­rity of the coming generation for their own securities—private jets, brownstones in Manhattan, giant mansions in Connecticut, dinners at Nobu, holiday homes at Mar­tha’s Vineyard, private tuition at Ivy Leagues—all depend on coolly calculative decisions which prior­itize profit over planet everyday.

For these ruling elites, Thun­berg and children like her who speak the truth are a threat. She must be brought down by the force of public opinion, so the right-wing cavalry marched into action. Dinesh D’Souza, right-wing extraordinaire, posted a pic­ture of Nazi propaganda featuring a blue-eyed girl with braids and juxtaposed that with a photograph of Thunberg. “Children—notably Nordic white girls with braids and red cheeks—were often used in Nazi propaganda. An old Goeb­bels technique! Looks like today’s progressive Left is still learning its game from an earlier Left in the 1930s,” he wrote. Fox host Laura Ingraham compared Thunberg to a Stephen King story.

Sandipan Deb, former edi­tor of India’s Financial Express and founder-editor of Open and Swarajya magazines, said “radi­cal-left handlers” are using Thun­berg to create a pre-industrial society akin to Pol Pot’s. On the eve of massive unseasonal floods which left many people dead in Bihar, Deb wrote: “Even if global temperatures rise by 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, noth­ing cataclysmic will happen.”

Deb goes on to claim “crazed leftists” want to keep the poor in a helpless state, while magnani­mous people like him see the way forward—better research in green energy which will be cheaper and more attractive than fossil fuel. By a sudden switcheroo, climate activists clamoring for an end of fossil fuel and for green energy are suddenly crazed and only out to drive people into poverty, while wise people like Deb have been calling for green energy all along. Besides the sleight of hand of this argument, Deb expects nobody will notice the internal contradiction of dismissing the 1.5 degree threshold while seizing the green energy platform.

Who will win this massive battle for the survival of all life? There is no doubt in my mind. It is not the middle-aged people furiously railing against Thunberg while trying to deviously confuse us with their bizarre arguments, hoping nobody will notice that their prime concern is for their stocks and shares. The only win­ners in this epic battle are the next generation, which will shape the world according to its own vision of prosperity.

DIPLOMATIC LICENSE
Gandhi and Nepali foreign policy

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was not just a founding father of the Indian republic, he was also the original inspiration behind the post-independence Indian for­eign policy. As the undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress and a globally renowned anti-colonial nationalist, Gandhi was a big influence on Jawaharlal Nehru, indepen­dent India’s inaugural prime minister and the first articulator of its foreign policy. Although Nehru had no major ideolog­ical differences with Gandhi, even on foreign policy, Nehru also knew the limits of Gandhi’s idealism, some of which he shelved after he became India’s PM and foreign minister.

Nehru was more of a realist than Gandhi. For Gandhi, non-violence trumped everything, even national sovereignty. He abjured all kinds of violence; means for him could never justify ends. During the Second World War, when Britain was on the verge of declaring a war on a marauding Nazi Germany, Gandhi advised the British to exercise restraint, for violence would only beget more violence. He also wrote to Hitler, saying that he refused to “believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.” Nehru and others in the INC were more realistic in their assessment and put forth the condition that the INC would support Britain only if the British first agreed to grant India independence.

The INC under Gandhi initially advocated an Asian feder­ation, which Nehru later changed into a pitch for a global federation, only which, in his evaluation, could prevent more destructive world wars. The concept of non-alignment was born of the same desire of Nehruvian India—and four other countries—to maintain ‘amity to all and enmity towards none’. Nepali leaders like BP Koirala, KP Bhattarai and Ganesh Man Singh were highly influenced by Gandhi and his immediate heirs. As a result, Panchasheel and non-align­ment became the professed bedrock of Nepal’s foreign policy under successive Nepali Congress-led democratic govern­ments. Gandhi’s 150th birth anniversary was celebrated on Oct 2 in Nepal and India, two countries where there still are countless adherents of the ascetic leader. Yet instead of pacifism, both the countries have come to be strong adher­ents of realism. Issues of national interests are narrowly defined, be it India’s ‘neighborhood first’ policy under Modi or Nepal’s ‘equidistance’ policy under Oli. In both the countries, there is an increasing tendency to see people as entities that can be sacrificed for protection of sovereignty against an external enemy.

Even in Nepal, Gandhian idealism is seen as more appli­cable in domestic politics than in international affairs. For instance, its proponents argue that only when the Maoists gave up violence could they achieve their political goals. But when India blockaded Nepal, the latter had no option but to shun idealism and seek closer ties with communist China, in the perfect application of realpolitik. Even though our for­eign minister still professes abiding faith in Gandhian non-vi­olence, Nepal’s national interest is seen as best served when it is not too seduced by Gandhi’s homeland and spreads its eggs over multiple baskets. In this reading, Nepal can simul­taneously apply ‘Xi Jinping Thought’, ‘Gandhi’s path’ and ‘the American dream’. Hard choices have become impractical.

Nepali students travel all over the globe for higher educa­tion. Their interest in going to the West for studies, most com­monly countries with English as the primary language, is increas­ing significantly. According to the Ministry of Education, 67,226 stu­dents got the ‘No Objection’ certif­icates for studying in 74 different countries between Magh 2073 and Falgun 2074. The highest number of NOCs were issued for Australia (33,241); and Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK together made up 55.73 per­cent of the total NOCs issued in this period. Depending on the destination country, the academic institution and the program of study, the experiences of students might be wide-ranging. However, one thing that possibly underlies all the var­ied experiences of Nepali students travelling and studying overseas is academic culture shock. The majority of the students face it, while only a handful of them may be able to discern and understand it for what it actually is.

The Merriam-Webster dictio­nary defines culture shock as “a sense of confusion and uncer­tainty sometimes with feelings of anxiety that may affect people exposed to an alien culture or environment without adequate preparation”. The academic culture shock, similarly, can be understood as the experience of being confused and anxious as the result of the differences in academic practices, including classroom engagements, assess­ments, and the overall teaching and learning practices between the academic institutions of the country of origin and destination.

Many Nepali students get some preparation for the possible cul­ture shock through movies, songs, books, and experience-sharing from people who have already been to those countries. But few are aware of and prepare for the academic culture shock in their destination countries. One way of preparing is to adequately inform and educate oneself about the academic culture of the desti­nation country overall, and the destination academic institution in particular. Internet provides ample resources and opportuni­ties for doing so.

Also, many of the internation­al-student-receiving-education­al-institutions in the aforemen­tioned destination countries show basic similarities in academic cul­ture, which might be the result of their strategies to accommodate the needs of the diverse students they get. Understanding the basics of an academic culture is the first step towards integrating in that academic culture. By sharing our experiences of the Western education system, we hope to be taking a step towards preparing potential Nepali International stu­dents to the West for the kind of academic culture shock they are likely to face.

One of the biggest could be the general academic expectations from the students. For example, in the US, students are expected to contribute to classroom dis­cussions and express their opin­ions and not merely agree to the teacher; “they are encouraged and even rewarded for challeng­ing authority” (Godwin, 2009). The relation between the teacher and student is expected to be informal. Nepali students coming from an educational experience of hierarchy and the unquestion­ability of teachers can find this difficult to adapt to.

Besides having done the read­ings described in the syllabus and expressing their opinions in the class, students are expected to take complete responsibility for and the lead in their learning—this might include things like choos­ing the research topic, resources, and presentation style. Some stu­dents might find it overwhelm­ing, especially coming from an academic culture in Nepal where students largely find themselves at the receiving end of education­al engagement.

Fink (2013) in “The Human Significance of Good Teaching and Learning” offers the meta­phor “helmsman” to describe a teacher who acts as a guide in the learning process. Teacher’s role in the Western education system as a “helmsman” or “guide on the side” is different from the “sage on the stage” (Fink 2013) role that most teachers in Nepal take on. For the former two roles to bring out the best of the learn­ing engagement, students are expected to be active learners and work as the ore-men in the educational raft.

Avoiding plagiarism is another non-negotiable academic norm in the West that Nepali students might struggle with initially. Stu­dents are expected to follow the rules of reference and citation prescribed by their academic institutions. Although the styles of references differ according to the discipline of study, com­monly used ones are APA, MLA, Chicago. It would pay off for Nepali students planning to study abroad to learn at least one style of referencing adequately. Even though there are slight variations in how each referencing style works, the essence of each is the same. Besides, learning any one reference style properly will sig­nificantly aid the learning of any other referencing style.

Sticking to the deadlines is yet another serious expectation in the Western academic culture. As most of the academic institutions use online learning management systems such as Canvas, Moodle or Blackboard to post and submit assignments, the systems consid­er the submissions delayed even if they take place a few seconds after the stipulated deadline. In case of emergencies, you can talk to the teacher and ask for an extension on the deadline. While some flexibility in deadline may be allowed, the request for exten­sion has to be made well ahead of the due date with appropriate explanation.

We believe that academic cul­ture is largely an extension of the prevalent culture. As there are visible cultural differences between the East and the West, the differences in academic cul­ture are neither unfounded nor irreconcilable. And Nepali inter­national students are not the only ones who struggle with these expectations and norms; stu­dents in general, either domes­tic or international, might strug­gle with them. The good news is that these differences can be smoothened out with careful and appropriate practice.

Dahal is a PhD Scholar in Social Work at Boston College, US, and Dhamala completed an MA in English from Virginia Tech, US where she taught English Writing to undergraduate students