Submit your Article

“On Friday, May 4, she contracted diarrhea, which got worse as the day progressed,” says Dawa Gurung, who was guiding Keith Eraland Jellum (79) and his wife Ann Carol Mc Cormac (71) on their trek to Upper Mustang. “On Satur­day morning, when I went to see her [Mc Cormac], she looked very weak. I imme­diately contacted my travel agency to arrange a helicop­ter rescue.” That was around 8 am. By the time the Simrik Air helicopter reached the res­cue site, it was already 2:15 pm. When the chopper final­ly arrived, Mc Cormac was quickly airlifted to Pokhara and heaved into an ambulance (at 3:10 pm). She was then rushed to the nearby Gandaki Hospital, where she was pro­nounced dead (at 3:45 pm).

It is impossible to say with certainty whether Mc Cormac would have survived had the res­cue helicopter arrived faster. But Dawa reckons she would have recovered because “even on Sat­urday morning she was coherent and could converse normally”.

The obvious question that he and Mc Cormac’s family are asking is: why did the rescue helicopter take so long to arrive?

Chhusang in Upper Mustang, from where the American couple were airlifted to Pokhara, falls in a ‘restricted zone’, which means all the aircraft flying into the area have to get pri­or government permission, even during emergencies. It is a lengthy process. First the relevant trekking agency has to request the aircraft provider, in writing, that a rescue mission be arranged. The helicopter operator then has to make the case with the respective Chief District Officer, following which the CDO faxes a request to the Home Minis­try. By the time the ministry gives its final go-ahead for the airlift, four or five hours of precious time will have been wasted.

Those involved in these rescue missions don’t under­stand why they have to go through the long bureaucratic process when time is of the essence. “Why can’t the CDO, for instance, be given the authority to issue a final permit for an emergency rescue?” asks Prem Thapa, the CEO of Simrik Air.

Just in the past year, a Japanese national died in a restricted area in the Dhaulagiri region while another pregnant woman from a restricted area in Gorkha also lost her life, as the rescue chopper failed to arrive on time in both the cases.

“I don’t understand why the Upper Mustang area has to be placed in a restricted zone at all,” says Sid­dharth Jung Gurung, the pilot of the chopper that had flown to Chhusang to rescue Mc Cormac.

Buddhi Sagar Lamichhane, a joint secretary at the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Avia­tion, informed that the restrictions date from the time of King Mahen­dra, when Nepal government was forced to impose a ‘no fly zone’ in some areas bordering China. This was because at the time the Khampa rebels were using Nepali territory in Mustang to wage a guerrilla war against China, with the help of the arms dropped by CIA aircraft.

“In my view, continued restric­tions, especially in tourist areas like Jomsom and Lo Manthang, no longer make sense. But then the final call is with the Home Ministry,” Lamichhane says.

“Due process has to be fol­lowed,” insists Ram Krishna Subedi, the Home Ministry spokesperson. “We have laws in place for a reason and unless they are changed our hands are tied.”

Asked if following due pro­cess is important even when lives are on the line, Subedi says, “The laws can be mod­ified as per the changing needs. But like I said, until that happens, we are bound to follow a proper paper trail.”

It was this protracted bureaucratic procedure that possibly cost Mc Cor­mac her life.

Siddharth, the heli­copter pilot, says he had a sinking feeling the moment he saw the ail­ing Mc Cormac at the back of his helicopter. “Her mouth was wide open and the husband had started sobbing inconsolably.”

When I called Dawa, the guide, on May 8, three days after Mc Cormac’s death, he hadn’t left the side of Jel­lum, the bereaved husband. They were still in Pokhara. I asked Dawa if I could I speak to Jellum on the phone. He replied that Jellum had a hearing problem and could barely make out what people were saying to him even in person.

Dawa informed me that the cou­ple’s son had landed in Nepal on the same day.

Without any investigation, the Depart­ment of Immigration (DOI) on May 6 released 11 North Koreans—10 women and one man—who were arrested on charges of working illegally in Nepal. The Metropolitan Police Crime Division (MPCD) had arrested the North Koreans during a raid at the Pyongyang Arirang Restaurant in Durbar Marg on May 4. Nepali law bars foreigners from working in the country without a permit issued by the Department of Labor. The metropolitan police had handed the North Koreans over to the DOI on May 6 for further investigation. But the DOI turned them over to the North Korean Embassy in Kathmandu the same day, after the North Koreans promised, in writing, that they would not abuse their visa provisions again.

The DOI, which was making preparations to deport the North Koreans, reportedly backed down after Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa stood firm against their deportation. The minis­try spokesperson Ram Krishna Subedi claimed that the arrestees would face action in accor­dance with the law. Meanwhile, Director Gen­eral of DOI Dipak Kafle refused to comment.

In their statement to the DOI, the North Kore­ans said that they were in Nepal as tourists and not as workers and that they would return to their homeland in a few days. Of the 11 arrest­ees, two have business visas while the rest have tourist visas. Three are employees at the North Korean Embassy. Four have initiated a process with the Department of Industry to change the restaurant’s ownership.

In its letter to the DOI, the metropolitan police mentioned that the arrestees were found to have abused their visa by working in the country. Dhiraj Pratap Singh, Superintendent of Police at the MPCD, said, “Our investigation revealed that they had violated the country’s immigration laws, so we handed them over to the DOI for further inquiry and action.”

Officials at the DOI said there was no conclu­sive evidence that the North Koreans had been working in violation of the law.

Apart from violating immigration laws, the North Koreans were also charged with evading taxes. The restaurant they were working in, by cooking the books and claiming that it is always in the red, has not paid any taxes to Nepal government.

Most functions organized by the North Korean Embassy are held at Pyongyang Arirang Restaurant, which is apparently run under the embassy’s direct supervision. It employs some Nepali cooks but most of its workers are North Korean citizens. Some of the restaurant’s employees were also found to be working at a Chinese restaurant at the nearby Rising Mall.

It has also come to light that some North Korean doctors with business visas have been working at Ne Koryo, a hospital run by North Koreans in Damauli, the headquarters of the central hill district of Tanahun. Such employ­ment is also in violation of their business visas.

The metropolitan police had conducted a secret investigation after it was tipped off that some North Koreans were working without per­mits and that they could be involved in other illicit activities.

By Shambhu Kattel | Kathmandu

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day whis­tle-stop tour of Nepal has created a lot of hoopla. Over the past few weeks an endless stream of op-eds and commen­taries has raised doubts about Modi’s ‘real intent’. Likewise, on the eve of Modi’s visit, the nationalist credentials of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli were questioned, as he had suppos­edly kowtowed before his Indian masters. There may be some substance to these suspicions. But in some ways they are also self-defeating. Whether or not you endorse Oli’s brand of politics, it is hard to deny that no other contemporary prime minister of Nepal has been as articulate in defending Nepal’s interests and in denouncing even a hint of foreign meddling. Oli has made some astute moves too.

For instance, during his last visit to India, “Oli managed to engage Modi on equal terms, reflecting a more confident Nepal,” says Constantino Xavier, a fellow at Carnegie India, a New Delhi-based think-tank. “This was unprecedented in India-Nepal relations, as successive generations of leaders in Kathmandu since 1950 chose one of two extremes with India: they were either subservient or confrontational, neither of which served Nepal’s interest.”

Oli is proving to be a more skilled statesman because he has avoided both these extreme options, says Xavier, who is originally from Portugal. “Oli recognizes that he loses little by playing into Modi’s playbook, giving the Indian leader all the optics and symbolic reverence of bilateral visits, even while he silently keeps developing real connectivity and interde­pendence with China. This is Nepal’s strategic tradition of non-alignment at its best, balancing both India and China.”

These observations of a neutral observer of Nepal-India relations suggest two things. One, Modi and the Indian estab­lishment are keen on improving relations with Nepal after bilateral ties reached their nadir during the blockade. Ahead of the 2019 general elections, they clearly want to show to the Indian public that Modi’s ‘neighborhood first’ policy, if not a complete success, has not been a total failure either.

Two, PM Oli seems to be making genuine effort to establish relations with India on a more equal footing. This means clearly articulating Nepal’s sovereign right to enter into any kind of relation with any country in the world, including China. Perhaps Oli realizes that he is at the fag end of his polit­ical career and as such wants to leave behind a strong legacy. According to his aides, he wants above all to be remembered as the first Nepali leader who had the confidence to negotiate with India as an equal and as a leader who not just talked but actually did something to balance India and China.

When judging Modi’s latest Nepal visit, let us look not only at the agreements that are signed (or not signed). Let us also evaluate it in terms of PM Oli’s long-term strategic vision.

It has been over two and a half months since CPN-UML Chair­man KP Sharma Oli became the country’s prime minister for the second time, following a thumping victory of his left alliance in last year’s elections. Soon after assum­ing office, he cobbled together a lean cabinet, comprised of relative­ly clean figures like Lal Babu Pan­dit and Gokarna Bista who have a proven record in government. Oli then brought important state organs like the Department of Mon­ey Laundering Investigation and the National Investigation Depart­ment under the direct purview of the PMO, apparently to make them more effective. His recent crack­down on cartels and syndicates of various hues has also been widely hailed. Moreover, there are signs that his dream of connecting Nepal with India and China through rail­ways could also materialize soon.

But despite such promising sig­nals, there is a lot of skepticism about the new prime minister’s intent. “Prime Minister Oli seems to be in a mood to centralize powers, which is antithetical to the spirit of federalism,” says Ujjwal Prasai, a writer. “He is using public support to strengthen himself, which is no different from what the Panchayat rulers used to do.”

Prasai points out how even the party-less Panchayat had survived for 30 years, as it enjoyed “a degree of public support”. In following a “tried and tested” method of cen­tralized governance, Prasai thinks PM Oli is taking the country on a dangerous path. “If there is one lesson of our failed experiment with Panchayat, it is that develop­ment is possible only with broad public participation in deci­sion-making.”

Words are not enough

Suman Dahal, a lecturer at Apex College in Old Banesh­wor, also sees a troubling pat­tern in how Oli is governing. “We hear the prime minister making big announcements. He says he will bring railways from India and Chi­na. He says he will end the reign of syndicates. But how do we know he is not saying these things off the top of his head?”

Dahal is not assured about the virtues of eradicating syndicates either. “What if removing the trans­port syndicates is not in the interest of the common people? I mean: Does the prime minister have hard data on how the removal of syndi­cates will actually help folks like us? Without proper homework, what if, for instance, transport fares go up rather than down?”

Upendra Gautam of China Study Center echoes Dahal’s doubts. “The prime minister’s announcement of a crackdown on various cartels and syndicates will be meaningless unless they are backed by strong and consistent action.”

Gautam cites how more devel­oped countries use different prox­ies to gauge the effectiveness of their government. “For instance, it is generally thought that if a country has well-enforced traf­fic rules, other public services also function effectively,” Gautam adds. “But the enforcement of traffic rules in Nepal is extremely lax. So what are the metrics with which we judge this government? Words are not enough.”

In the opinion of security analyst Geja Sharma Wagle, “This is perhaps the strongest government democratic Nepal has ever had. Yet it has been unable to make decisions commensurate with such power.”

What kind of decisions is Wagle talking about?

“Take the prime minister’s decision to bring the National Investigation Department and the Department of Money Laun­dering Investigation under the PMO. Having done so, he should have immediately set about drafting the requisite policies and regulations to make them work. Yet he has done nothing of the kind,” Wagle says.

Unintended consequences

Wagle brings up other unintend­ed consequences of the central­ization of power. “Now that the government’s intelligence-gather­ing unit has been brought under the PMO, the Home Ministry has been deprived of a crucial source of security-related information—with grave ramifications down the line,” he adds.

Prasai, the writer, believes the prime minister is pandering to people’s desire to consume more and more—to have wider roads, bigger airports and comfortable homes—without a broader debate on whether such an approach is in the country’s best interest. “PM Oli likes to talk about bringing railways from India and China but he seldom discloses their cost. Are such expen­sive railway links worth it?” he asks.

Gautam of China Study Center, for his part, says he has seen too many governments in Nepal in his lifetime, and how they have mis­erably failed people after promising so much at the outset. “So let us hope that this gov­ernment is different, but let us also wait a bit before we start trusting it.”

“All the while PM Oli has been projecting himself as a vision­ary,” says Asmita Verma, who has just completed her Masters in International Relations from Amity University in New Delhi. “But he has thus far unveiled no roadmap for the much-touted development and prosperity.”

Verma sees Oli’s gestures like addressing the country on the Nepali new year from Rara Lake and his adoption of children to educate them as nothing but “populist gim­micks, which he is quite good at.”

But what about foreign policy? Hasn’t the communist prime min­ister done a rather good job of balancing Nepal’s two important neighbors? “His overtures to the outside world are ill-prepared and incoherent, as if he is trying to balance himself on two different boats,” says Verma.

And then, Madhes

In contrast, Hari Bansh Jha, a former professor of economics at Tribhuvan University and currently a visiting fellow at India’s Observer Research Foundation, credits Oli for bringing a degree of warmth back to Nepal-India ties. But again, when it comes to the domestic sphere, he too believes “there has been no substantive change.”

“If PM Oli says that per capita income of Nepalis has grown along with our GPD, we have to remember that these are not overnight phe­nomena. The foundation for what­ever turnaround in the economy we are witnessing was laid before Oli became prime minister,” Jha says.

He also thinks that the Oli govern­ment has ignored the Madhesi issue of constitution amendment, which would mean that the “Madhesis will continue to harbor a degree of resentment against Kathmandu.”

All in all, nearly everyone I talked to for this report—some cited, some not—seemed to agree that the all-powerful government of KP Oli could do much good. Some of his recent decisions have aroused a glimmer of hope. But people are not ready to believe him—not yet. These conversations also suggest that while Oli can perhaps afford to ignore the views of some members of the intelligentsia, as he recently suggested he would, he as the prime minister needs to pay attention to the hopes and fears of common folks .